With the permission of the House, I should like to share my time with Deputies Nealon and Kenny.
Private Members' Business. - National Rail Network: Motion.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move:
"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to draw up a ten-year funding programme to develop and maintain the Irish railway network; to ensure the maximum usage of EC Structural and other funds with the objective of providing on the national rail network continuous welded rail and automatic computerised signalling facilities; and further calls on the Government to convert the National Roads Authority into a National Roads and Rail Authority so as to ensure equality of infrastructural funding between road and rail services.
I congratulate Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn on her appointment. I wish her well and a successful tenure in a very important Ministry. I know she has been reared in the tradition of politics and she would not expect me to be anything other than combative and to give as good as I get. I assure her that any reasonable proposals she has which will reduce transport costs, give our economy a greater competitive edge vis-à-vis transport and develop our infrastructure will have my full support.
It is a matter of total despondency — this arose before the Minister took office — that in the last tranche of EC funding, from 1989-1993, virtually nothing went to public transport. Only £36 million was allocated to public transport which was for rail facilities in the commuter area of Clondalkin. This sum represents less than 4 per cent of the total EC five year programme. If we look at the breakdown of the funding given by the EC, we can see that it was £818 million, and of this 75 per cent went to roads, a sum of £615 million. Airports got 11 per cent of the total, a sum of £93 million, and seaports received £66 million, or 8 per cent.
Fine Gael believe that this huge error cannot be repeated. This is symptomatic of the total neglect of the railways and the lack of any coherent, overall policy since 1987 by successive Governments in developing the railways. It can even be argued that the Department of Finance have a hidden agenda to close railway lines, particularly in rural areas. This policy has reached the end of its life because today's problems in regard to reliability and delays, which I will outline in some detail in a moment, will be the major safety problems in future. Irish Rail have survived, despite the straitjacket of controls on capital and borrowing, on the basis of increasing journey times and slowing train speeds to ensure safety.
As we all know, safety is a very important and sensitive issue. At the last Question Time on this subject the Minister would not agree to publish a report. Therefore, I should like to reflect on some aspects of the report of the Kennedy Henderson Group from Surrey, which was submitted to the Government on 3 December last. The report was commissioned by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications and the chairman of Iarnród Éireann. I should like to quote three passages which are of particular concern to me. The first relates to the executive summary at the beginning. It states:
In summary, the following key conclusions have emerged from the study: in comparison to British Rail, Iarnród Éireann's safety performance would appear to be lower in key areas such as passenger and staff safety but the situation is confused by different reporting arrangements.... The condition of Irish Rail's assets is declining through lack of investment which is beginning to affect reliability. Today's reliability problem could become tomorrow's safety problem.
I should also like to quote from page 43 of the report because it deals with the relationship between the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications and Iarnród Éireann. Regarding their investment policy it states:
The issue of funding for investments was discussed with IE senior management. From this it was clear that the public finances climate dictated the amount available for IE for investment in the railways and so expedient requests had to be made using railway and engineering judgment. Inevitably, this constrains requests for investments ... resulting in an ageing locomotive and rolling stock fleet profile infrastructure which becomes less reliable. ... It should always be borne in mind that today's reliability problem due to ageing equipment may become tomorrow's safety problem.
Page 46 of the final part of the report in that regard states that Iarnród Éireann is neither absolutely safe nor absolutely unsafe. A report which makes a statement of that kind is a matter of deep concern to me and my colleagues in the Fine Gael Party.
Fine Gael are committed to an investment programme in the railways by utilising EC funds for the development of the railway track or, as it is known in the business, the permanent way. In simple terms what is required is continuous welded rail; instead of the old fashioned jointed sections with wooden sleepers we should have concrete sleepers and continuous welded rail on all inter-city routes to and from Dublin. This would replace jointed sections.
We also favour automatic computerised signalling systems. At present the electric token system is in place, a bizarre system whereby people hand on metal chains from station to station so that two trains will not meet on a single track, a practice which is over 100 years old. We want a computerised or radio signalling system. To provide this and continuous welded rail would cost £240 million at 1992 prices. The simple breakdown is: £30 million for the Dublin-Sligo route; £90 million for the three Mayo routes, including Dublin-Galway; £30 million on the line from Tralee to Mallow and £30 million to finish the Dublin-Cork line — it is complete as far as Portarlington; and there would also be a sum of £30 million each to Dublin-Waterford and Dublin-Rosslare. These figures are from reliable industry sources.
The figure excludes the Dublin-Belfast line and I would like a commitment from the Minister in this debate regarding clarification of the Government's policy on the Dublin-Belfast line because it is a vital cross-Border link. If any route qualifies for a high speed Euro rail, it is the Dublin-Belfast line. A major study was done by the UK and Irish authorities in 1989 to evaluate the most cost effective investment strategy for the next decade for this line. It concluded in its recommendations that the double track should be upgraded with new signalling to allow speeds of 145 kilometres per hour giving it a non-stop journey time between Dublin-Belfast of one and a half hours. It recommended introducing high quality trains with a 50 per cent increase in frequency to nine trains per day in each direction. This would increase passengers by about 40 per cent. They also recommended making adequate provision for the carriage of larger international containers. The estimated total cost at that time was £72.5 million to be spent over a period of 45 years. The southern share of this was £42.5 million with a sum of £30 million for Northern Ireland Railways.
I understand that Northern Ireland Railways and Irish Rail have agreed a joint marketing programme and joint delivery so that they would have the same vehicles. This is what we need. The money is available. I understand that the breakdown of the sum of £42 million would be: £33 million for track and signalling and £9 million for rolling stock. This is a crucial opportunity, when the Internal Market borders are removed in 1993, to make this a reality. I regret to have to say that his proposal is still gathering dust.
All of these proposals are eligible for 75 per cent EC grant aid under the Regional Fund and the Cohesion Fund. The next tranche of funding for the five-year period, 1994-98, inclusive, is to be negotiated. We need to grasp this money which is being made available. I understand from discussions I have had with Commission officials that all this money will go to transport and environment related projects.
Another reason we believe there is now a need for a new policy in relation to railways is the EC Directive on railways which is intended to relieve railway companies of the financial responsibilities for infrastructure and which will improve the position of the railways. It will be necessary for public service obligations to be more clearly defined. The purpose of this Directive is to introduce greater clarity in the relationship between railways and the State. It is vital that Ireland operates within this new EC Directive. Railways are receiving such enormous resources across the EC that they are now talking about privatising them. Therefore, there have to be new regulations. They see the separation of track from rolling stock and the transport rail operator as fundamental to this. Whether or not we like it, it is now European policy to segregate the infrastructure. What we are saying is that this investment programme clearly relates to the track.
Any analysis of passengers purely on inter-city routes shows a strong, growing public demand for such services. This entirely excludes all DART passengers and commuter rail services in the vicinity of Dublin. This year there will be about eight million passenger journeys on inter-city rail. This compares with 6.7 million passenger journeys in 1985. There is a huge demand for these inter-city services. The Dublin-Cork line caters for about two million passenger journeys per year. In 1990 the number of passengers who travelled on the Dublin-Sligo line to a point west of Mullingar was 400,000. When we look at the detailed breakdown we can see quite clearly that despite delays and unreliability, Irish Rail have done a tremendous job — even with outdated rail cars, rolling stock and locomotives — in developing their services. They have shown a steady growth every year since 1985. I have to say that the success of the DART, with a total of 25 million rail journeys, is staggering.
The benefits of such an investment programme simply by utilising EC funds, means that over a ten-year period journey times can be greatly improved for all rail passengers. For example, the journey on the Dublin-Sligo route can be shortend by some 40 minutes. On each of the other routes — Dublin to Galway, Westport, Tralee, Waterford and Rosslare — journey times can be reduced by half an hour. In addition, the elimination of stop-go repairs and temporary maintenance would mean a saving of £3 million per annum. It is a comment on the present condition of the railway track that so much has to be spent on temporary maintenance.
The other major benefit of such planned utilisation of EC resources would be to release Irish Rail revenue and resources for the development of their rolling stock. It is estimated that some 80 locomotives — which pull the rail carriages — will be required over the next 12 years. These cost, at present prices, £1.5 million each. I am confident these locomotives could be funded without Government capital by Irish Rail out of their revenue if they were released from the burden of paying for the full cost of the infrastructure, the railway track. To put it at its simplest, it is bizarre that Dublin Bus, with 800 buses, pay a mere £250,000 for the privilege of using the roadways in the greater Dublin area, whereas Irish Rail have to pay £45 million per year to maintain, not to speak of developing, railway tracks. No other transport operator is discriminated against vis-à-vis infrastructure in this way.
Fine Gael have always favoured value for money in the context of public transport. Any breakdown of the subvention of £80 million will show that the public service obligation was £21 million; a once-off payment of voluntary severance last year was £3 million; financial charges — debts which arise because the company are not financed on an equity basis — were £11 million and over £45 million, over half the amount, went on maintenance or renewal of the track, signalling and gates. It has to be acknowledged that since 1984 the State subvention has been reduced in real terms from £100 million to £80 million this year. Passenger numbers on inter-city rail services have increased to eight million and there is a total of over 25 million passenger journeys per year.
Industrial relations in Irish Rail have not been satisfactory. There have been poor inter-union relations and a number of serious disputes over the past 12 months. The company have about 5,700 employees. There has been a history of rivalry between SIPTU and the National Bus and Rail Workers' Union. A recent Labour Relations Commission report recommended the need for a new approach by both management and unions through the setting up of a joint industrial council, chaired by an outside, independent person. The Government should immediately ensure that these recommendations are implemented and the council established. It is also important that all aspects of this report are implemented to improve the competitiveness and performance of Irish Rail. This would include a new disciplinary scheme, especially in the area of safety; a new code of practice on inter-union relations and an internal system for dealing with collective bargaining.
Fine Gael are proposing a ten-year corporate plan for Irish Rail to deal with the new pressures arising out of the liberalisation of bus competition and the improvements in the road infrastructure. The Newtownmountkennedy by-pass and the Shankill by-pass on the Dublin-Rosslare route and the Athlone by-pass have meant that by standing still the railways are losing ground rapidly. The new bus competition Bill which the Taoiseach has promised this session, and which will increase the competitive pressures of bus passenger services, will also all add to the strain on the railways. All these problems mean that we must now have a corporate plan for the railways.
Fine Gael favour the clear inclusion in the Public Capital Programme, including EC finance, of railway infrastructure on an equal basis with roads. One of the most pathetic aspects of the Government's performance over the past four years has been their failure to apply for even one penny of available EC funds to maintain and develop our inter-city rail services. I know for a fact that Irish Rail made a detailed submission to the Government in 1987 seeking inclusion for EC funds and that when the submission was sent to Brussels without any reference to railways the Commission sent it back and said it did not want a roads plan, it wanted an integrated transport plan. There is a concept in this country that the Department of the Environment are a spending Department and that the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications are an administrative Department. This concept is wrong and until such time as we have one transport Department instead of the Department of the Marine dealing with shipping and ports, the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications dealing with aviation and shipping and the Department of the Environment dealing with roads, traffic and haulage, we will have no coherent transport plan.
No finance was allocated to inter-city mainline railway routes in the EC funded operational programme for 1989-93. This is in spite of the fact that all over Europe the highest priority for expenditure on transport infrastructure has been on high speed rail. It will be the responsibility of Irish Rail to pay, out of their own revenue, for improvements in their rolling stock, including rail cars and locomotives. Such a policy framework will allow for a new marketing programme for Irish Rail whereby they can develop a new attractive product and join in the evolving movement towards a high speed rail network. Fine Gael's objective is to ensure that these goals become a reality. Lamentably, the Government have shown no inclination or interest in this topic.
I wish to refer to the Government's amendment which I have just received. As usual, it contains the typical congratulatory, complacent nonsense which we so often see in Government amendments to Private Members' motions. We do not want a further study, a series of analysis or paralysis: what we need is investment and action. Everyone who understands the railway sector knows what needs to be done. In simple terms, we believe that the track should be segregated from the rolling stock, that the transport company should be segregated from the infrastructure, and that Irish Rail should get an even break.
Anyone who reads the safety study will know that investment is the key to this problem. There is a golden opportunity in the doubling of the European funds in that the money for roads, airports and seaports is being handed to us on a plate. All that is needed is a little imagination and commitment. With such commitment Irish Rail will respond and the railways can be restored to their former strength. We inherited a very sound railway system from the British and we should not throw it away through penny-pinching and neglect. I ask all sides of the House to support this motion to ensure that investment in Irish Rail becomes a reality so that passengers can enjoy the best and most modern European railway service.
On Wednesday, 3 November 1862 the first train arrived at the still unfinished Sligo railway station. I have been studying the original timetable and, making due allowance for stops at the 22 stations on the line from Dublin, the train, run by the Midland Great Western Railway, travelled at a faster speed than did the Irish Rail train from Sligo to Dublin this morning. After 130 years that is not progress.
The arrival of the first train was naturally an occasion of great jubilation. The Sligo Chronicle of the day reported that:
The temporary platform was crowded by the beauty, wealth, and respectability of Sligo, while the very line itself was thronged by thousands of persons anxious to catch the first signal of the approaching locomotive....
The band of the Sligo Rifles was in attendance and executed some choice selections of music with great taste and judgement, much to the gratification of the assembled spectators....
They had a great day in Sligo or the Sligo Chronicle had a great reporter. I suspect it was a combination of both.
Recently there was another major gathering at Sligo railway station, but his time there was anger not jubilation among the assembled spectators. This was a protest meeting about the way things now are on the Sligo-Dublin rail link. It was part of a campaign led by Sligo Chamber of Commerce and Sligo Corporation to save the line from death by slow strangulation. The manner in which this campaign was supported and is being supported by the entire Sligo population and backed up by towns and communities right along the line to Mullingar reflects the frustrations at the inadequacies of the service and the fear that the line would be closed entirely. It also reflects a welcome determination by the people of the area that they will no longer settle for being second class passengers.
Delegations were sent to Dublin and met by the present and previous Ministers for Tourism, Transport and Communications. The word was that special funding would be made available for the Sligo line. Indeed, when I raised the matter in the House the previous Minister told me that on the very day he was meeting Irish Rail to see what could be done for Sligo. In the end only £2 million out of a total of £45 million was provided for track renewal, by coincidence the very same amount that was taken away from the Sligo line the previous year when Irish Rail ran short of funds in more favoured areas. That £2 million will renew exactly seven miles of track. At that rate it will take 20 years to complete the job of a continuous welded rail to Dublin, the kind of track that now exists elsewhere.
What happens in the meantime? For safety reasons the maximum speed of the trains was reduced last year to 50 miles an hour over long stretches. This year it is down to 40 miles an hour and next year it will be 30 miles an hour. That will be the speed at which one gets home, that is if there is not a breakdown.
That is no way to run a railway. That is why we need the ten year corporate plan for Irish Rail being proposed by Fine Gael. That is why Fine Gael favour the clear inclusion in the Public Capital Programme, including EC finance, of money for the railway, infrastructure on the same basis as for roads. Within that ten year programme I would, of course, be seeking priority for the Dublin-Sligo line, not because we want preferential treatment — indeed we would settle right now for the service at present in operation on the Cork line. Unfortunately we have reached the stage where we cannot even utilise the hand-me-downs from the Cork line because the track would not carry them.
The Sligo line cannot wait for ten years. Unless given priority there will be no line in ten years time. It will have been killed not by any decision of the Minister, the Government or Irish Rail, but as a result of people being driven from it because of its slow pace.
For peripheral areas ease of access will be essential in the new Europe. For us in the north west, the periphery of a periphery, it will be vital. Yet we seem to be getting scant consideration in Government planning, other than a few badly needed by-passes on the N4. The nearest a Euro route will get to us is Kinnegad. A proper railway line should be provided, thereby utilising the Structural Funds as they were intended. With continuous welded rail, automatic computerised signalling, and decent rolling stock — I am not talking about the continental super trains — the journey between Sligo and Dublin could be cut by 40 minutes.
The Government did not apply for one penny of EC funds to develop and maintain our inter-city rail services. The sustaining of our railway network is vital to the whole country, and no part of the network is more vital than the Sligo line. Yet we know that the first part of the network designated for the chop if the Government do not provide the funds is the link between Mullingar and Sligo. There is little use in the Minister saying it will not be closed. If the Minister adopts this plan and provides the money it will not be closed. Otherwise it will die of slow strangulation.
This is a difficult time for the northwest and the west. This area has faced almost continuous crises from the time of Cromwell and the Great Famine through successive waves of emigration, but always the resilience and determination of the people and a love of the land ensured survival. That determination is still there as can be seen from the response to the bishops' initiatives. However, this time survival will be more difficult. Proper railway links are an important factor for farming, tourism, lifestyle and social reasons as well as for pensioners with free travel. The approach has been outlined by Deputy Yates. In the new open Government I ask the Minister to be generous and wise and accept this plan. The one thing we do not need is another study. Everyone knows the facts. They have been clearly outlined. Deputy Yates has put forward a plan but perhaps the Government will put forward a better one. What is needed is action and not a further study.
From his knowledge of the history of the Dáil the Acting Chairman will be aware that the Sligo train was the transport used by the then Deputy Jinks to return to Sligo on a famous occasion, thereby missing a division in this House, prolonging the life of a Government and adding a new word to the English language. I sincerely hope that when it comes to the vote on this motion tomorrow night my colleague, Deputy Brennan, will not be on the Sligo train but will be with me in the lobby, thereby dramatically underlining the determination of all the people of Sligo to ensure the future of the rail link.
I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, which I have not had the opportunity to do in the House. I wish her the best of luck in her very important Department.
I thank Deputy Yates for giving me a few minutes of his time. I support the motion in his name and that of Fine Gael calling on the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to draw up a ten-year funding programme for the proper, efficient and maximum use of the EC Structural Funds.
It would be fair to say that the Irish rail system has been on a downward spiral for a considerable number of years. Under the existing rail structure and finances it is not possible for our rail system to compete against the massive developments taking place in road transportation, and the increasing use of air transport. Because of outdated facilities and a lack of funding, as outlined by Deputy Yates, the rail system is simply not able to compete. One realises the inadequacies of our rail system when one considers the time it takes to travel by train from Paris to Nice or from London to Glasgow.
For any rail system to be accepted and used by the public to a point that even approaches commercial viability, it must be safe, efficient, reliable and cost effective. Serious questions arise in connection with many aspects of the Iarnród rail system. No fault can be attached to many of the staff working on the lines or on existing trains within Iarnród because they are labouring and have laboured for many years under a great degree of handicap.
In the Minister's own constituency there was the recent spectacle of sections of the line from Athenry to Tuam to Claremorris being lifted. Spurious evidence was given by Iarnród personnel as to the reasons for lifting those sections and their replacement.
As one who uses the western rail line weekly, I should like the Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, to say how much is spent on the improvement and upkeep of the line from Dublin to Westport and the spur line from Claremorris to Ballina. Is it true that a significant amount of the money laid aside for improvement of that section of line was used in golden handshakes for persons retiring from Iarnród Éireann? I should like the Minister to answer that question.
When one considers that after the 1850s there were rail links to Clifden and Achill and the tourism potential of those areas, and given the vast numbers of tourists using similar lines in north Wales and the Snowdonia region, I believe the fare structure of CIE and Iarnród Éireann needs to be looked at. There is a great difference between the price of return fares from Dublin to the west and from the west to Dublin and no one has given a rational explanation for that. Hundreds of students from the west of Ireland attending third level colleges use the train every Sunday evening. Does the Minister know that it is cheaper for a student to avail of a return fare from Westport to Galway — that is, travelling from Westport to Athlone to Galway — than a return fare from Westport to Athlone? Why? Because the measurement of the line in distance used is the old system from Claremorris to Tuam to Galway, a system which is no longer in operation. The fare structure is outdated, antiquated and needs to be examined. Even the use by students of student cards for reductions in fare does not apply given the special incentives operated at times by Iarnród Éireann on various lines.
It should be possible for passengers to book a seat on a train, as can be done in many countries in central Europe that have very inferior facilities. I do not know whether the Minister of State, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn has ever stood at Heuston Station on a Friday evening and witnessed the mad scramble down Platforms 3 and 5 from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m., with people desperately seeking a seat on a train. I have seen people standing in great discomfort until they reached Athlone. As Deputy Yates pointed out, that is because we are not using the Structural Funds as they should be used. This open Government should examine that aspect under the ten-year plan proposed by the Deputy.
In the organisation's 1990 report, the chief executive of Iarnród Éireann stated that while the group increasingly moved towards improving the commercial efficiency of its operations, the significant infrastructural costs of the rail network and the continuing need to modernise the road vehicles and railroading stock required ongoing investment of funds on a level that could not be generated from operations. The Government should take note of that clear statement and act accordingly.
Certain questions have been raised down the years, and I am sure that the Minister has heard them. Iarnród Éireann, with a magnificent site for development on the far side of the Shannon, built a new station on the Dublin side of the Shannon. If an Iarnród Éireann engineer were to say there were structural faults in the main bridge across the Shannon then, with one stroke of the pen, all the rail services to the west could be knocked out. In her reply to the debate, I should like the Minister to state clearly that there is no thought and no scintilla of evidence that the western rail link might at any time be terminated and that it is the conviction and commitment of the Government to improve and update the line from Dublin to Westport, and the spur line from Claremorris to Ballina. I also support Deputy Nealon's claims for the Sligo line.
It is interesting to note that during the EC Council of Transport Ministers' meeting of 17 December 1990 plans were drawn up for the overall development of rail systems up to the year 2010. Those plans involved the construction of 5,600 miles of new rail track that were capable of facilitating speeds of up to 220 miles an hour in continental Europe and also the upgrading of a further 9,000 miles of track. Here in Ireland, we have a rail system that is now so antiquated and under so much pressure that today's train from Sligo takes longer and travels at a slower rate than the trains did almost 100 years ago. That is an indictment of our system. It is patently obvious that our rail system has been on a downward spiral for too long.
I call on the Minister to take action. She is a western Deputy and should understand these matters. There are a number of reports already available and there is sufficient information in the Department at her disposal. I support the call by Deputy Yates and the Fine Gael Party that the Government adopt a ten-year restructuring plan and do so now. Action is needed.
The Government say that tourism numbers need to be doubled within a number of years but to reach this goal they must realise that increasing numbers of young people travelling from within Europe use the rail system but they will not use our rail system if it is run down consistently, as happened for several years. It is possible to move more people per hour by train than by any other system, and one has only to witness the response to special offers by Iarnród Éireann by large numbers of people who rush to use the trains because of the comfort provided, because one can meet people, one can rest or one can work on the trains. If the rail system is to be taken into account in a modern, efficient economy, then I trust that this Government, intent on making their name in a short time and comprised, as they are, of "a temporary little arrangement", will see to it that the call of Deputy Yates and the Fine Gael Party for a ten-year funding programme to develop and maintain the rail system, is put into operation immediately.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute the following:
"notes and endorses the proposal by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to carry out a major strategic study of the future investment needs and resources required for the overall rail network and to seek appropriate EC assistance for the rail network from the Structural Funds and the proposed Cohesion Fund".
Ba mhaith lion, at dtús, mo bhuíochas a ghlacadh leis na Teachtaí sa bhFreasúra agus go háirithe an Teachta Yates as ucht a rá ag tús a chuid ama go mbeadh sprid an chomhoibrithe idir an páirtí sin agus páirtithe an Rialtais agus idir é féin agus mé féin. Tá súil agam gur mar sin a leanfaidh sé, agus ar ndóigh bheinn ag súil go mbeadh díospóireacht bhreá, bhríomhar idir an bheirt againn ar chúrsaí iompair.
At the outset I wish to take this opportunity to categorically reject allegations that the Government have a hidden agenda to close down the railway network, or any part of it, by stealth or through deliberate lack of financial support. Nothing could be further from the truth and such allegations are clearly contrary to all the facts.
Indeed, I find the motion in the name of Deputy Yates particularly ironic in view of the policy towards the railway adopted by his party when in Government and encapsulated in the document, Building on Reality, page 62, paragraph 343, which states:
A package of retrenchment measures will be implemented on the passenger rail side; this will not affect the existing carriage replacement programme but will mean that there will be no new substantial investments in railways and there will be strict cash limits on other expenditures.
I welcome the Fine Gael Party's about-turn on railway policy as enunciated here this evening.
The level of Exchequer support towards the railways over the years has been very substantial. Total direct State support to the railways amounted to over £940 million between 1980 and 1991. In addition, capital investment of almost £230 million was made by CIE in the railway network over the same period. The Exchequer subvention to CIE for 1992 amounts to £108 million of which £90 million is being allocated to Irish Rail.
Of the £90 million which will be received by the railways this year, £45 million will go to the maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure, that is to say the trackwork, signalling, stations, bridges and so on — the physical basis on which railway services are operated. The other £45 million will go to support the operation of socially necessary services which cannot operate on a fully commercial basis, and to make interest and other exceptional payments, including £10 million in respect of interest on the loans taken out to finance the development of the DART system. I should add that, apart from the DART interest, the deployment of the Exchequer support is a matter for CIE and Iarnród Éireann.
The Public Capital Programme for 1992 provides for capital expenditure of £17.8 million by Irish Rail on investment in new rolling stock, signalling equipment and other essential rail related infrastructure, including projects which qualify for funding under the Operational Programme on Peripherality. Again, the allocation of these resources to specific programmes and projects is a matter for Irish Rail.
When viewed against the severe financial constraints on the Exchequer in recent years, the level of State support which has been, and continues to be, provided to the railways is clear and incontrovertible evidence of the Government's commitment to the railway network.
The financial situation which faced this country in 1987 required resolute action and difficult decisions on reducing public expenditure. Public transport, in common with other sectors has had to bear the impact of reduced availability of Exchequer funding. In these circumstances it has been necessary for Iarnród Éireann to cut their cloth according to measure and to seek economies wherever possible. Indeed, I welcome this opportunity to commend Iarnród Éireann on their performance in recent years, which have seen passenger and freight volumes increase. For example, in 1990, the company recorded over 25 million passenger journeys — the largest number of passenger journeys recorded since rail services were first introduced in Ireland. In addition, productivity and output per employee has increased by 10 per cent since 1987.
However, it is now over ten years since the last major review of the rail network, which was the McKinsey report of 1980. Since then there has been a resurgence of interest in the railways, particularly in Europe with the development of new technology and a recognition of the valuable role which the railways can perform in terms of reducing road congestion, more efficient movement of people and goods and preservation of the quality of the environment.
In addition, it is generally accepted that significant investment requirements in railway plant and equipment will arise in the coming years. It was against this background that my predecessor informed Dáil Éireann last December that in the light of the level of support for the railways since 1980, and the substantial future investment requirements for the system an urgent strategic study of the future investment needs and resources required for the rail network is being undertaken. This study is being carried out at present by CIE in conjunction with my Department and the Department of Finance. As a first step, the study will address all the major issues including the options for the future of the railway network, and the costs, investment requirements and funding possibilities in relation to all these options. I have requested that this study be completed as soon as possible. Once this work has been completed, I will consider whether any further work, either by way of the appointment of a railway commission, engagement of consultants, or some combination of both, is desirable before bringing the matter before the Government.
The results of the strategic study will form an integral element in the formulation of an investment programme for the railway. I intend to pursue the possibilities of EC assistance from the Structural Funds and the proposed Cohesion Fund for such an investment programme. This should not be interpreted as an either-or situation involving diversion of funding from roads investment. Roads are an essential part of proper transport planning. However, I am determined to ensure that public transport receives a significantly greater share of EC funds for investment than in the past.
Major public transport infrastructure improvements take a considerable time to plan, finance and implement. The current Operational Programme on Peripherality focuses largely on the roads network. Deputies will recall that, when the programme was being prepared during the late eighties there was a great deal of public concern about the condition of the roads network and it was clear that very significant investment in roads was a necessary priority. Much has already been done to improve our roads network and, further major investment is needed. Clearly, however, the time has now come to raise the profile of public transport in terms of EC funding — not least because such investment also helps to secure full value from the roads network by preventing congestion.
I should also point out that public transport is not being ignored under the current operational programme. There are a number of major public transport projects under consideration by my Department in conjunction with the EC authorities, for ERDF assistance under the current Operational Programme on Peripherality. These projects include the provision of a commuter rail link on the south west rail corridor — including Clondalkin — upgrading of the Dublin-Belfast rail line, some work on the restoration of the Harcourt Street line and the development of a rail link to the Belview Harbour development at Waterford. The development of commuter rail services on the Maynooth line has already been completed, involving the opening of four new stations, while work on the replacement of freight gantry cranes at Limerick, Sligo, Cork and Dundalk stations has already commenced.
Expenditure on these projects between now and the end of the existing operational programme will be sufficient to secure a full drawdown of the ERDF allocation for public transport projects available under the Operational Programme on Peripherality. If any savings arise elsewhere on the operational programme it may be possible to divert such savings to work on mainline track renewal. My Department will continue to monitor the programme with that possibility in mind.
I should mention also at this point that the Government have approved investment by CIE of up to £18 million in 17 new railcars for use on suburban lines. This investment will enable Irish Rail to improve the quality of their suburban commuter rail services. The expenditure will be funded entirely by CIE from a combination of their own resources and commercial borrowings. I understand that a contract for the new railcars will be placed shortly and that delivery of the new rolling stock is expected by early 1994. The new railcars will be introduced into operational service shortly thereafter.
There has been much comment recently, including this evening, about the safety of the rail network arising from a confidential report jointly commissioned recently by my predecessor and the Chairman of CIE. I want to avail of this opportunity to again emphasise to the House that the consultants have concluded that the railway is being operated to an acceptable level of safety. However, their report also includes a number of recommendations for action to improve safety standards in Irish Rail. The majority of the recommendations relate to more vigorous application of rules and regulations, training and improved work practices. I am advised by the Chairman of CIE that implementation of the report's recommendations is already in hands.
The Chairman has also assured me that safety continues to be Irish Rail's main priority and will not be compromised. He has also stated that the company are continuously striving, as a matter of policy, to improve the quality of service and standards of safety on the railway. In this regard, I have been informed by Irish Rail that every mile of track on the rail network is inspected at least twice weekly. Any defects found on inspection are reported and arrangements are made for their immediate repair. Maintenance personnel are located strategically throughout the rail network for this purpose. The chairman has confirmed to me that Irish Rail at all times operates services on a basis designed to ensure optimum safety standards. In addition, I have been assured by the chairman of CIE that Irish Rail have detailed and extensive procedures in place to ensure the safe operation of railway services at all times, as required under the Transport Act, 1950 and other relevant legislation.
I am also aware of the concern of the people of the midlands and the west generally about the future of the rail network in these regions. Again, I am happy to confirm that there are no proposals before myself or my Department for the closure of any rail lines including those in the west. I have been advised by the Chairman of CIE that following a review of their track renewal programme earlier last year Irish Rail deferred some elements of work on the Mullingar-Sligo segment of the Dublin-Sligo line. This resulted in some speed restrictions being applied to some sections of the line. The distance of line where these speed restrictions apply varies between half a mile and one mile. These restrictions have added ten to 15 minutes to the journey time between Dublin and Sligo. The Chairman of CIE has informed me that maintenance on the line is continuing and that Irish Rail will be spending £2 million this year on track renewal on the line.
As regards the future of the railway, I wish to emphasise that I see an important role for rail services in the development of any future investment strategy for public transport in Ireland. We must be conscious of the importance of the railway in European terms, notwithstanding the geographic and demographic differences between Ireland and the European mainland. There is much to be learned from the European approach where plans are already well advanced for the development of a trans-Community high speed rail network and a trans-Community combined transport — i.e. road and rail — network. Ireland has been availing of the opportunity presented by these developments to emphasise the importance of the rail network for us and the need for investment assistance from the EC to help develop our network. I will be continuing to strongly endorse this approach in the context of discussions with the EC authorities both in relation to future Structural Funds and in connection with the Cohesion Fund which, as Deputies will be aware, was agreed under the Maastricht Treaty to provide assistance specifically to environmental and transport projects in the four peripheral member states — Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. It is possible that this fund may come onstream as early as 1993. I am determined to do everything possible to secure the maximum possible assistance under both the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to help put in place a modern public transport network which should see us well into the next century.
The proposal for the development of a national roads and rail authority has already been dealt with recently in detail by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, in the context of the Second Stage debate on the Roads Bill, 1991. I understand that Deputy Yates indicated during the debate that he would be tabling Committee Stage amendments to convert the National Roads Authority into a national roads and rail authority.
The Committee Stage debate on the Roads Bill will, no doubt, provide an opportunity to discuss the implications of this proposal in detail. Therefore, I will confine my comments at this point to a general response. I am not at all convinced of the merits of this proposal. The purpose of establishing the National Roads Authority is to provide a single purpose organisation to get on with the task of urgently developing the national roads network. The National Roads Authority will have a full brief in co-ordinating and providing a single focus for over 30 local authorities which currently have responsibility for national roads.
We already have a single organisation responsible for railways. I am not convinced there would be any advantage to be gained from a transfer of railway responsibilities to a road and rail authority.
Furthermore, I share the view recently expressed by the Taoiseach in reply to a parliamentary question by Deputy Yates, that the key to the coherent implementation of Government transport policy is co-ordination. Rejigging the allocation of functions may solve one set of problems only to create another. Assigning road and rail functions to one authority, in the view of Fine Gael, might solve some problems. Unfortunately, it could also make it more difficult to pursue a coherent public transport policy. There could also be a downside for national roads, diverting the proposed National Roads Authority from their single-purpose mandate to get our national roads into shape.
Accordingly, I urge the House to support the Government amendment.
Deputy Dennehy has a little over 12 minutes.
It was interesting to hear how the debate moved from one concentrating on a national rail network, important nationwide, to one of importance to the town of Sligo as Members contributed along the line.
Cohesion.
Perhaps Deputy Yates has greater commitment to the national scene than his colleague Deputy Nealon who is fighting his corner.
We have had a very constructive discussion of this overall topic to date. We must remember that the future of our rail network is of vital importance to the country generally. I believe also that the Minister's commitment, spelled out here a few minutes ago, will be enormously important in future years, in that there are current discussions in Europe of a whole range of funding relating to transport costs in particular. We carry more than our fair share since our average transport costs constitute 9 per cent of total product cost as compared with 4.5 per cent in the case of our European counterparts. It is in an attempt to reduce those costs somewhat that the Government, and in particular the Minister, are studying all aspects of transportation of merchandise and passengers.
I like the Minister's balanced approach, particularly looking to the future and at the European scene, at what is taking place there, ascertaining what we can learn from that. It must be acknowledged that major mistakes have been made in regard to rail, rail design and programming. Major changes are taking place, some occasioned by the advent of the Channel Tunnel in the provision of cargo villages and so on. I welcome the Minister's approach which is not one of jumping in blindly and saying: Let us spend £300 million or £400 million. Rather this study being undertaken will be of enormous importance to the future of our economy.
Any discussion on the rail system or on the road network will have to centre on the availability of finance. If we are to bring our transport system up to date major investment is required. We must recognise the honest commitment of the Government when we discuss this type of funding and service. Deputy Yates referred to welded rail and proposed spending about £240 million. Welded rail is not a new thing. It is fairly common and the general public are aware of it. Credibility and commitment are a factor in discussing huge sums of money. In write-ups Deputy Yates still gets credit for being one of the architects of Building on Reality in which it is stated that a package of retrenchment measures would be implemented on the passenger rail side and that this would not affect the existing carriage replacement programme but would mean that there would not be any substantial investment in railways and strict cash limits on other expenditures.
What year was that?
That was Deputy Yates's programme when he was in power and only a moment ago he proposed spending £240 million. There is a credibility gap there. The approach of the present Minister is more credible. She is willing to look at the European scene and what is happening there and she will look for money from Europe when we are ready, when we know what we want. In the past money was spent on projects that turned out to be white elephants. We do not want a repeat of it. We need a study. It is difficult to combine all transport services. It is ten years since the whole transport area has been looked at properly. We should not leap forward blindly.
Deputy Yates said that despite funding given to Iarnród Éireann their figures have increased magnificently. It has proved that there was perhaps a need to trim sales in certain areas. A greater turnover of passenger numbers was achieved with what is available. Iarnród Éireann also have to earn their credibility and they are doing it magnificently. The DART service has been a great success. That is the sort of programme we need. We should look at the national scene and get away from Sligo and local services like that. The Minister has identified four areas in which she is working with a view to providing major transport projects. That is what we want.
The Government's target is to double tourism figures. This will happen with the advent of a radically changed rail system. The change will come in a programmed, consructive fashion. It will not come about by somebody throwing a suggestion into the Dáil Chamber without professional back-up except the technical back-up of a reporter from The Sligo Tribune or something like that. We are committed to carefully husbanding public funding and we have a commitment to go to Europe. Future investment will come largely from European funding but it will only come with the aid of a careful, positive programme.
As a person who worked in the placing and replacement of the equivalent rail tracks for cranes, I worry about the throw-away remark that the railway was not absolutely safe. The chairman of the company commented that here we were talking about work practices and areas that do not need large expenditure. Deputies should not make remarks which would worry passengers using the service. Iarnród Éireann are doing a magnificent job and they deserve our support. Deputy Yates said that Fine Gael believed in value for money. How could the Deputy expect to get value for money as a result of top-of-the-head proposals and throw-away remarks? We need the careful, constructive approach of the Minister.
Many of the items required such as carriages are being bought in. This is being done to a large extent within company budgets and not just by subvention requiring the taxpayer to put up another £100 million.
A while ago people were talking as if no funding was going to the railways. Total direct State funding to the railways amounted to £940 million between 1980 and 1991. That is a lot of money by anybody's reckoning. The money needed is being given. As a semi-State employee for many years I know that State and semi-State companies do the job where possible. I do not believe in wasting money. We have now got to a point where Iarnród Éireann are using money to the best advantage. The increase in passenger numbers is proof of that.
This debate has given the Minister an ideal opportunity to nip in the bud the suggestion that there will be rail closures. The Minister categorically stated that there will be no closures. There has been mischiefmaking with regard to the Sligo line. People have been worried because they are in a fairly isolated area and the rail service is the only main transport they have. I am delighted that the Minister has used this opportunity to assure us that there will be no closures.
This is my first opportunity to support the new Minister in any of her proposals. The amendment is ideal. A strategic study is what is needed. I fully support it and I recommend the amendment to the House for adoption.
With the permission of the Chair I wish to share my time tonight with Deputy Today O'Sullivan and tomorrow with Deputy Jim Kemmy.
Acting Chairman
Agreed? Agreed.
I preface my remarks by extending a hearty welcome to the Minister, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn in her new portfolio, an important one in which we are all interested. The Labour Party support this Private Members' motion proposed by Deputy Yates. We in the Labour Party have a long tradition of commitment to the principle of a proper and efficient public transport service. The reasons for this are generally well recognised. Such a public transport system provides equal access and mobility and is used by those who because of age, health or income are prevented from driving private cars. Rail transport is the least polluting mode of transport and is environment friendly. Indeed, Iarnród Éireann have an excellent tradition of safety. We have a deep interest in those factors.
The importance of the Private Members' motion — and it has not come a day too soon — is that it focuses on the urgency and necessity of bringing our rail service up to an efficient standard. At this time — I am sure the Minister is aware of this through her contacts with staff at all levels of administration and maintenance — there is real concern that the existing engines and carriages are being driven into the ground because of the inadequate system of replacement. It was really worrying to hear the Minister say that although the decision to purchase new rail cars had been taken and the order placed, they will not be delivered until 1994. The existing rolling stock will have to travel millions of miles in servicing the travelling community. That is a matter of great concern.
The Sligo rail line was mentioned already tonight. The reality is that if information on the serious situation of the line were not coming from the board of management the Sligo people may not have activated themselves to demand that the Minister and the Government recognise the serious condition of the line and eventually Sligo would have been left without a rail link. When maintenance work on the line had been reduced to the extent that the speed of trains had to be controlled, that acted as a deterrent to the growth of passenger numbers and the consequent growth in revenue. I am pleased to note that a decision has been taken to properly restructure and maintain the rail link from Dublin to Sligo.
We have problems in Kerry also. Doubts and concern have been expressed over a period about the future of the Mallow-Tralee line. Part of the rail line has been welded, but that operation was suspended. This creates doubts as to whether Iarnród Éireann have in mind a real and permanent future for that section of the rail network. I hope they have because any attempt to downgrade that section of the line would have disastrous consequences for the business and commercial communities and the tourism potential of the area. The people of Kerry do not forget. In the mid-fifties a decision was made and implemented to close three branch lines: the Headford-Kenmare line; the Farranfore-Caherciveen line and the Tralee-Dingle line, which served very isolated communities. When we look back at those closures we regret that not only was the rail service suspended but the decision was taken to lift the railway tracks. Had they been left in place they could now be used for the benefit of the community and used for tourist drives and such activities.
The retention of every mile of existing railway network is absolutely essential for our status, and our commercial and tourism life. Many counties have suffered as Kerry did — Cork, Clare and the western counties. The backbone of the railway line should be maintained with vigour and determination and the necessary moneys should be expended on it.
The Minister indicated she proposes to seek advice and commission a study on the rail service. At this time it is an urgent necessity to replace the depleted rolling stock. That is absolutely essential. Many trains leaving Dublin on Fridays for the west or south do not have catering facilities. This discourages many people from using the rail service.
Having met with people I tabled a question asking the Minister to arrange with Iarnród Éireann to have a ramp at all railway stations in order to cater for wheelchair users. We have all seen that people in wheelchairs have to be physically taken from the chair and put onto the railway carriage. We believe that should not be necessary. It would be a simple matter to have a mobile ramp at each of the principal railway stations to cater for the handicapped persons requiring a wheelchair so that they would no longer need to be taken physically from their chair and put onto the railway carriage. This would demonstrate that our rail line agency were conscious of the needs and problems of all travellers, not only the physically fit.
We support the call for an intensive ten-year plan for the rail service. However, at the outset it is essential that much of the existing rolling stock is restored. Let me impress on the Minister that it can take a long time for studies and reports to be finalised but the urgent requirement is for rolling stock and engines so that the level of service that operates on the principal lines can be maintained without further deterioration. The staff are concerned that a deterioration will take place unless there is a relatively early replacement of engines and carriages.
I join with my colleague in extending best wishes to Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn on her appointment as Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications. I had the opportunity to address questions to her as Minister for Communications but our exchange was more confrontational than it has been tonight. The task facing the Minister is indeed a daunting one.
I wish to refer to some aspects of the Minister's speech. Expenditure between 1980 and 1991 amounted to £940 million. That must be considered in the context of what has been spent on the road network. Has a comparison been made of the capitation cost per passenger as between those who travel by road and those who travel by rail? There is a substantial claw-back by way of tax and PRSI from rail employees. There is also the plus factor represented by the tourists who use the railway system. Taking account of all those factors we are getting good value for money, despite concern about the state of the permanent way. The motion calls for welded track on the national rail network. There are stretches of the permanent way where it is not safe to travel fast and efficiency falls because of the necessity to reduce speed. I hope this matter will be addressed.
The Minister also mentioned a 10 per cent increase in productivity since 1987. In a situation where the plant is to a large degree antiquated and past its best days, it is quite significant that they have managed to achieve this increase in productivity. People have responded in an effort to ensure that the railways become more efficient, although I would imagine that there is some demoralisation due to the treatment they have received from successive Governments. I regret that there was some argy bargy across the floor as to who was or was not responsible.
Local issues are very important. There is a certain affinity between people who use the network and the system itself. Prior to the closure of the Cork-Bandon line, every signal box, signal post and level crossing was freshly painted and in top working condition. The case for its closure was presented on the basis of cost. This was the greatest outrage of all time. We had the same on the Macroom line and in west Cork. I welcome the Minister's statement that there will be no further closures. Concern has been expressed about the Cork-Cobh line, which is important for several reasons. It provides a commuter service between Cobh and Cork city. A heritage centre is being built in Cobh which we hope will be a massive tourist attraction.
Every train which travels to Cobh must stop at Fota Island which provides wonderful facilities. The park there is a tremendous attraction. If there is to be any resurgence in industry, particularly heavy industry, in the Cork Harbour region, it is essential that the Cobh line be maintained. I am very happy at the Minister's assurance. The Minister is fortunate in that tourism is also part of her brief, as well as Communications. She might tackle the problem with regard to the Youghal line and bring it back into service. There is great tourism potential in east Cork. Youghal was at one time the major attraction for people living in Cork city because there was a convenient and cheap method of transport for the 32-mile journey. The manner in which the line has been allowed to run down is criminal. I hope the Minister will address this problem in the months ahead.
There are six points to this motion. It calls on the Government to maximise EC funding and other funds and to construct a national network of continuous welded rail with automatic computerised signalling facilities. The motion also calls on the Government to convert the National Roads Authority into a National Roads and Rail Authority and calls for an equality of infrastructural funding between road and rail services. I compliment the Minister on her assurance that there will be an equality of funding.
If there is a deficiency in the motion, which we are supporting, it is the absence of any mention of the bus service. CIE came into existence because the services provided at that time wre not deemed to be adequate. There were two or three rail companies in operation which were not profitable and the likelihood of their survival was very slim. There was a multiplicity of small road transport companies which were not providing the service required by the public. I cannot see why Deputy Yates does not mention the bus service in his motion. There is a linkage between the rail and bus services because they are under the umbrella of CIE. The bus company is now providing a service which in the past was provided by the railway companies. The future of Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath should have been included in the motion. Concern has been expressed by employees of the bus companies about deregulation. This is effectively the privatisation of the bus service. The motion is praiseworthy and I welcome the expression of concern about the railway but we should have gone the whole way and addressed the total problem.
Regarding the ten-year funding, the Minister and Deputy Dennehy have indicated that the bulk of this funding will come from Europe. Many people are depending on EC Structural Funds and I hope the well does not run dry before we have the opportunity to tap that valuable source. When the funds come on stream they must be used in a prudent manner. Deputy Yates envisages the Structural Funds being used to provide automatic computerised signalling facilities. If that will make the system safer, by all means let us have it, but by far the most important factor is the rolling stock replacement. I welcome the provision of 17 rail cars but these are to be used on suburban lines. People who travel on the main lines complain about the poor quality of the rolling stock. I regret that the total funding is going to the suburban lines. The person who has to travel a distance will suffer the greatest inconvenience because many of the carriages are out of date and are not properly heated. They can be most uncomfortable in the summertime due to lack of proper ventilation.
Debate adjourned.