Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1992

Vol. 416 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - National Railway Network: Motion (Resumed.)

The following motion was moved by Deputy Yates on 3 March 1992:
"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."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and 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"
(Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications.)

Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan was in possession and had ten minutes remaining. I gather that Deputy Kemmy now proposes to take some of the time available to Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan. There are ten minutes remaining.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to this debate and to discuss our railway network. As an island country communications and transport are of vital importance to us. As an island on the periphery of the European continent it is important that we have an efficient railway and overall transport system.

In the past we tended to have a rather negative attitude to our railways and did not perceive them as constituting a valuable asset or resource. Neither did we understand the difficulties of Irish Rail, or the difficulties of CIE, as the company was known in the past, encountered in providing a railway network in a country like ours under-populated by 3.5 million people. Perhaps we did not perceive the competitive difficulties facing the country as clearly as we might, or that the company suffered from under-funding while endeavouring to provide our people with a social service. We are lucky that so many of our rail lines have survived.

When speaking last evening Deputy Moynihan referred to a number of lines that had not survived in County Kerry and other parts of the country. I realise that railway lines cannot be preserved as a mere, quaint legacy of the past affording people opportunities to come along and make films there; that is not what I had in mind at all. We must perceive our railways as a valuable asset, providing a means of communication and transport for our people and goods. In that context it was a great pity that the West Clare railway was dismantled in 1961, a great loss, as was the Rathkeale to Listowel railway line, a great loss to the counties of Kerry and Limerick and indeed nationally.

A climate of fear has been engendered in our society, especially among Irish rail workers, it being recognised for some time past that the Government have not allocated sufficient money for investment in rolling stock for the maintenance of our permanent lines.

Therefore I was pleased to hear the Minister say there would be no closures of any additional lines. I welcome that announcement. I forgot to congratulate her on her appointment. She made a comprehensive introductory speech saying there would be no further closures but rather that funding would be continued and, if possible, augmented. I also welcome the Minister's commitment to upgrading our rolling stock, also important.

Deputy Yates in the course of his introductory remarks cast some doubt on the safety aspects in Irish Rail. I doubt the validity of that contention because, when one compares the record of Irish Rail, formerly CIE, with other transport companies and modes of transport, one discovers their performance compares favourably. I always travel from Limerick to Dublin by train and indeed to other parts of the country. I contend that it is one of the best modes of transport affording one an opportunity to work, read and take refreshments on board. I suppose we should be grateful that not more lines were terminated in the less enlightened days of the past.

We must emphasise the positive as well as the negative aspects of our railway system. In more recent times there have been good industrial relations in the company, this being a positive contribution on the part of their workforce ensuring efficiency and good relations overall. Public transport is a valuable asset our society often take for granted, its benefits not being sufficiently recognised.

Unfortunately Irish Rail have suffered a considerable amount of valdalism to their property and other fittings on railway lines and stations in recent times. All of us public representatives will be aware of this trend, having had representations from many residents about vandalism perpetrated on the property and homes adjoining railway lines. Recently in Limerick I received representations from two groups in the community, in the north city area, who have suffered a great deal of vandalism on the part of people walking the lines. When we were young, railway lines were sacrosanct; one would never walk on them, fully realising the dangers involved, that it was private property and not something to be used as a playground. I walked the line recently in Limerick with an engineer of Irish Rail from Limerick Junction headquarters when the line was like a public thoroughfare with men, women, boys and girls walking along the line as though it were a roadway. I inquired of that engineer whether they could be stopped. He replied it was a matter for the Garda, that while they were technically trespassing the law was being flouted and ignored. It is a sad state of affairs that people can walk on our railway lines with impunity, taking their lives into their hands. There is also the spectacle of young people unemployed, or early dropouts from schools, who trespass on our railway lines in order to drink cider and wine and vandalise property. It would appear that people, especially in urban areas and cities are suffering from such vandalism. I should be very interested to know the annual amount and cost of the vandalism perpetrated agains Irish Rail.

Neither have we recognised the contribution our railways make to our tourism industry, many tourists like to travel by train, it being safer than road transport. When one remembers the crime committed on trains in other countries it can be said that, by and large, our trains are free of such crime, something which should be emphasised on the positive side.

I might also compliment Irish Rail on keeping the Dublin/Belfast railway line open despite the threats of bombs being placed on the line on an almost weekly basis. I travel to Belfast occasionally. On my last two trips there there were threats of bombs on the line, when I saw people change from the train to buses, old and young alike, some with babies in arms. I thought then: how horrible to subject people, North and South, to this type of terrorism. It is a traumatic experience. There is also the inconvenience of transferring from train to bus, sometimes in bad weather. What kind of people can do that to their fellow citizens? I am delighted that both railway companies have kept the line open. It would be a bad day for this island if we allowed terrorism to stop our trains running. We must never allow a small minority to control the majority. It is important to keep the line open between Dublin and Belfast.

Before Deputy Brennan moved on to greener pastures I read a report in the Evening Herald on Wednesday 5 February under the headings “Harcourt Street back on line”“Cabinet approves bus and tram plan for old railway”. I am not sure how accurate this report was, but I would like to know if the Cabinet have met on this question of reopening the Harcourt Street line. The Minister might let me know when she is replying, because there has been a lot of speculation in that regard.

I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Kemmy again, but the time available to him is well nigh exhausted. I would be grateful if he would bring his remarks to a close.

The subject is not exhausted, although my time is. I would ask the Minister to clarify whether she intends to reopen the Harcourt Street line.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Cullimore.

Agreed? Agreed.

I support the Government amendment. There is no sense in putting down a Private Members' motion every so often for the sake of debating a motion during "Private Members" time. We need strong ideas about where we are going. I have no doubt that we provide an excellent rail service. Successive governments have not spent sufficient money on the service, although over the past few years something like £950 million has been spent on it. The railway system is an environmentally friendly way to move a lot of people. It is also an excellent way to transport heavy bulk over long distances.

One of our problems relates to the size of the country. Transport experts say that it is uneconomical to transport huge amounts of freight by rail unless it is going over 100 miles and some people say up to 200 miles. Most of the business generated in Dublin Port is within ten or 15 miles of the port. People, including me, thought that it would be a good idea to put containers on to a train and move them out to the areas outside of the city. However, that is uneconomical for moving freight only 15 miles, as every move costs at least £12 and to transport small numbers of containers would cost £20 per move, that is two moves at a cost of £40. I looked at a report dealing with moving freight to Cork city. By rail it would cost about £200 and by road about £260. One could leave Dublin by road at 7 a.m. and deliver the freight right to its destination in Cork by 12 noon. To move something by rail would take two days, taking into account the loading and unloading time at each end. The problem of freight on the railways is a major problem.

With regard to transporting passengers one just has to look at the success of the DART. Even if it has to be subsidised for many years, it is the best way to transport people. We can carry thousands of people every day without interfering with the environment. One of the major transport lanes is from Dublin to Belfast. At nearly every meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary body of which I am a member the rail link between Dublin and Belfast is raised. We should spend some money on that route to encourage people to use it as traffic through old towns like Drogheda and Dundalk is choking the roads. We need a non-stop train between Dublin, Drogheda, Dundalk and Belfast and this would promote good relations between the northern parts of the country and Dublin.

There is no nicer way to travel from Dublin to Galway than by train. The most beautiful entrance into the city is by train. Somebody referred to safety problems but it is only a case of slowing down trains in some areas and spending a bit of money. Although the Kennedy, Henderson report has not been circulated yet, everyone seems to have seen it. The report indicates some areas where safety should be upgraded. The Government will tackle those issues straight away. As far as I know, CIE have indicated that they will tackle the problems.

I do not believe there will be any rail closures. There is not much left but we still cover the western, southern and south-eastern seaboards. I regularly travel on the trains, which is one of the best ways to see Ireland. It is very relaxing and it is quicker than by car. We should encourage people to travel by rail. There is no point in suggesting that railway lines will be closed. The Government have said that they will not close down railway lines and there is nothing in any of the reports to suggest that lines will be closed. I have been assured that the Government do not intend closing any of the lines that are open.

What about the Sligo-Dublin line?

From what I know the Sligo-Dublin line is to be upgraded. When the Opposition were on this side of the House the same problems were there. They did not just arise in a short time.

You could blame us for setting up the State, if you want to go back that far.

We did a fair bit of that ourselves. We are committed to looking after the railways. Considering what the Minister said with regard to Dublin and light rail, one realises that it is all part of an ongoing philosophy on how to move people. On the one hand, there is the light rail and, on the other, there are the old railway lines around Dublin. I have asked that CIE should look at all the old lines and consider how they can be used. In the case of Croke Park, which it is proposed to modernise, it has been suggested that there be a passenger base there, an excellent way of using the rail line. There is a great future for rail transport. The Minister, who is from the west, is fully aware of the problems with the railways and she has gone about dealing with them in the right way.

We are on the periphery of Europe and it is very important that this matter is dealt with soon. I feel happy that it will. In the next four to five years the rail service will be transformed beyond recognition. However, we will have to concentrate on passenger rather than freight traffic. I would love to see that emphasis reversed but I am not sure if it would be economically viable.

A Cheann Comhairle, with the permission of the House I seek, to share the remaining time with my colleague, Deputy Cullimore, and I hope there will be a minute or two left for Deputy Roche.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ar dtús, ní mór dom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire Stáit as ucht gur toghadh é mar Aire Stáit ag an Roinn Turasóireachta, Iompair agus Cumarsáide, agus tá súil agam go mbeidh toradh a chuid oibre le feiceáil againn sna míonna agus sna blianta atá romhainn. I support the Minister's amendment to this Private Members' motion. Because of the limited time remaining, I will be brief.

I wish to refer once again as I did previously in the Dáil and Seanad when I was Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications to the total subvention to CIE in respect of the provision of an essential public transport service. The subvention this year will amount to £108 million, which is just over £2 million per week. More than £86 million of that figure will be spent on the railways. In addition, the Public Capital Programme provides for expenditure of £36.2 million, of which £10.3 million has been allocated for expenditure on railway signalling, new rolling stock and other rail related infrastructure. The allocation of resources within the group's individual capital programmes is a matter totally for the board of Córas Iompair Éireann, of Iarnród Éireann, of Bus Éireann and of Bus Átha Cliath.

I wish to emphasise the level of State support to the railways over the past ten years. A sum of £940 million was spent in that time on the railways and this is a firm indication of the Government's overall commitment to the national rail network. In the same decade, there was an expenditure of almost £250 million by CIE on major capital works on the rail network.

The Government have also approved the purchase of new rail cars at a cost of £18 million and this will further enhance Iarnród Éireann's commuter rail service. The total investment made by Iarnród Éireann since 1987 in signalling, rolling stock and renewal of rail lines amounts to over £71 million, of which £49 million was spent on track renewal. The Public Capital Programme for 1992 provides for capital expenditure by CIE of £45 million, of which £17.8 million is being allocated to Iarnród Éireann for investment in new rolling stock. The allocation of these resources to specific projects is a matter for Iarnród Éireann.

Much has been said about the downgrading of railway lines and some speakers said lines were to be closed. I should like to say that during my time in the Department, there were no proposals before the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to close or downgrade any of the rail lines. I do not know where the scaremongering has come from.

A strategic study of the investment needed and the resources required for the rail network is being undertaken as a matter of urgency and the results of the study will form an integral element in the formulation of a spending programme to be compiled for the next phase of the Structural Funds or under the Cohesion Fund. The Minister proposes to seek a greater share from the European Community of the significantly increased Structural Funds together with allocations from the new Cohesion Fund for the railways. I take this opportunity to categorically reject allegations that the Government have a hidden agenda to close down the rail network or any part of it by stealth or through a deliberate lack of financial support. Nothing could be further from the truth and such allegations are clearly contrary to the facts.

I wish to comment on the information given by Deputy Yates. I found it ironic in view of the rail policy adopted by his party when in Government which was encapsulated in their policy document Building On Reality. I will not quote from it because everybody knows what it was.

I acknowledge the successes attained by Iarnród Éireann in recent times in the increasing the volume of passenger and freight traffic. In 1990 the company recorded over 25 million passenger journeys which is the highest figure of passenger journeys since the rail service was first introduced to Ireland. I hope Iarnród Éireann will have continued success. Their success has been achieved through the contribution of all the staff, management and employees, and it is gratifying to note that the productivity and output per employee has increased by 10 per cent since 1987.

In regard to the Government approved investment by CIE of up to £18 million on new rail cars for the suburban line, I wish to take this opportunity to be parochial and place on record my hope that Iarnród Éireann will see to it that the rolling stock on the Cork-Cobh line will be improved by an allocation of some of these new rail cars. I should point out that the continuing development of the Cobh line is important for the existing traffic on that route and also for the extra traffic that will be generated by the development of the Cobh Heritage Project, which I have been committed to from its inception.

The new rail cars will be funded entirely by Córas Iompair Éireann from a combination of their own resources and commercial borrowings. I understand that a contract for these new rail cars will be placed shortly and that the rolling stock will be used immediately on delivery, which is expected in 1994.

I am conscious that the rail service is part of the strategy for public transport in Ireland. In fact, the experience of rail in European terms has been the subject of much discussion at the Council meetings which I attended. In recent years a great deal of time was devoted to the rail network in conjunction with combined transport. At first this only included rail, road and inland waterways but through our efforts we had the maritime included to take account of our peripheral position. Now that the combined transport network of rail, inland waterways and martime has been included in the vocabulary of the Commission I ask the Minister to pursue as diligently, strongly and as emphatically as possible funding for our combined transport structure and to place emphasis on getting aid from the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Fund for moveable assets. An agreement under the Maastricht Treaty included the peripheral states such as Ireland and I urge the Minister to continue to emphasise the importance of funding so that we can put in place an efficient and modern public transport network.

A Cheann Comhairle, with your permission I wish to share my time with Deputy Roche.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is like the division of the loaves and fishes.

It is like the 17 rail cars. They will probably end up in Greystones.

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Kenneally, on his appointment, which has particularly pleased people in the south-east. I wish him well in his portfolio. I welcome the Government amendment to this motion.

There has been much debate in the past year or so in relation to the future of the rail service and this is to be welcomed. The previous Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Brennan, announced his intention recently of setting up a commission to review the operation of the rail system and this commission will obviously have to address the whole question of the funding of the railways, particularly EC funding.

There has to be a future for the railways in Ireland on the basis of peripherality. As Ireland is peripheral to Europe, then the areas of the country served by rail and, indeed, other forms of transport, are peripheral to the peripheral. If regional policy in Europe means anything, if the cohesion protocol of the Maastricht Treaty means what it says, then all of Ireland and not just Dublin must have efficient and cost-effective access to market in the same way as central areas of Europe have.

Transport, therefore, has a major influence on the continuing health of our economy. Adequate access transport facilities and services are essential both to the future development of Irish tourism and to industrial development, especially given Ireland's export-oriented economy.

Major transport investment is needed if we are to achieve our full potential and exploit the new internal market. Such investment is essential if Ireland is to hold its own, particularly with the advent of the enhanced peripherality which will result from the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993. It is essential that Ireland's transport system be integrated as far as possible with the European network and that all modes, road, rail, sea, air, have a role to play.

The current operational programme on peripherality, which runs from 1989 to 1993, has caused a severe imbalance in favour of road investment within Ireland at the expense of rail, without any proven justification. This programme provides for a total investment of £818 millions in the period to 1993, attracting EC grant of £516 million. Within that figure of £818 million, road development secures 75 per cent or £615 million, while railways in the Dublin area receive £28 million or just 4 per cent and very little is available for railways outside of Dublin. We have to be concerned at the degree of imbalance in this investment. There is no doubt that our transport system needs investment, but full consideration has to be given to the relative merits of all modes of transport within this programme.

There has been a general recognition that there is an urgent need to address environmental issues and problems and to manage resources wisely. Transport and its associated infrastructure can have severe environmental effects in terms of air quality, health, amenity, noise and visual intrusion and accidents. The railways have a very good environmental and safety record and trains are among the lowest risk categories for personal injuries. It appears to me that in the past the social benefits to be gained by wider use of railways have been ignored when it comes to funding decisions.

Budget constraints in terms of public spending have to apply equally to rail and road modes, for example. It should not be acceptable that financial support for railways should be equated with loss-making and inefficiency in the context of the broader general transport policy, and the question has to be asked whether the social costs incurred by each form of transport be charged against that particular mode of transport.

One of the major successes of the railway company has been the operation of the port of Rosslare Harbour. A spectacular growth in business has taken place over the past five or six years, with the result that over 1.25 million people use this part every year. The terminal is one of the finest in Europe.

However, often the main Rosslare-Dublin train leaves Rosslare Harbour minutes before the boat arrives. This has led to a great deal of anger and annoyance among tourists and local people. A more flexible arrangement could be provided on the Rosslare-Dublin route through the provision of self-propelled rail cars. What the railway needs most of all at present is investment in infrastructure, namely track and signalling. In so far as the track is concerned, Government investment has, up to now, resulted in almost 400 miles of continuous welded rail but there is an urgent need to invest in a further 600 miles on the radial routes. The benefits from this investment would be reduced journey times and increased passenger comfort, both of which are necessary if the railway is to compete.

With regard to signalling we have, again as a result of Government investment, computer controlled systems between Dublin and Bray, Dublin and Cork, Dublin and Limerick and Dublin and Athlone. I welcome the Government amendment.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the railways and to that extent I compliment and congratulate Deputy Yates on introducing the motion. Obviously I will be supporting the Government amendment. I also congratulate and welcome my colleague and good friend, Deputy Kenneally, the Minister of State.

It is a great pity Deputy Yates was not in a position of some authority at the outset of the 1980s when his party, who had campaigned on the issue of mass transit in the greater Dublin area, came to power. The first thing they did in the rail area when in power was to chop the decision to extend the rail electrification from Bray to Greystones. I do not blame simply the Government parties at that time. There was a singular lack of foresight amongst our planners and developers. It was not simply a political flaw, although there were plenty of political flaws in that Government. It was in fact a flaw amongst the planners. Unfortunately I have to say that my own party when they returned to power shortly afterwards did not do a great deal better and we are left with a position where the mass transit system to the north Wicklow commuter belt is inadequate. We actually have to borrow rolling stock and rail cars from the North of Ireland to service the commuter needs of our people. That is surely a scandal.

Deputy Lyons made the point that in the past decade £940 million of taxpayers' money has been invested in the railways by way of one form of subvention or another. Over £230 million has been put into capital services. It is specifically about capital services that I should like to speak. The sum of £18 million was allocated in recent times, the first capital input to rolling stock in many years. CIE and now Iarnród Éireann rightly made the point that they were starved in this regard by successive administrations. When the £18 million was allocated, following the prompting of myself and all the Dáil representatives from County Wicklow, the then Minister, Deputy Séamus Brennan, made specific reference in the allocation to a portion of that money being used to upgrade the rolling stock on the Bray-Greystones commuter line. I do not apologise for being parochial in this matter. People who take an interest in the rail system know that unless that kind of investment is made the rail system will not grow. The company will then say that not enough people are using the system to justify its development.

I reiterate that the Government made specific reference to upgrading the rolling stock on the Bray-Greystones line. In recent months I have been very disturbed, as have the town commission in Greystones, of which I am chairman, at what we regard as signs of back-sliding on the part of management in that company. We have also been dismayed that the very excellent group who are pressing rail electrification have not been able to get unequivocal promises or undertakings from Iarnród Éireann that they will fulfil the promise the Government made. I would ask the Minister in this very short contribution to ensure that when that £80 million is spent, the improved facilities which were promised by the Government — and welcomed and campaigned for by Deputies on all sides of this House — are provided, that the company fulfil their side of the bargain and put in additional rolling stock. If time permitted I would say more about Deputy Yates's new found interest in this area.

The Deputy is spared.

I welcome the fact that at long last there is an interest in the House in the rail system.

I propose to share my time with Deputies Gerry Reynolds, Louis Belton, Nora Owen and with the new horizon party.

New Agenda.

It is a dreadful title.

Perhaps Deputy McCormack would wish to start, otherwise his five minutes will be used up.

It is up to every speaker to draw attention to the running down of the railway service in his or her own area. I shall spend most of my time dealing with the matter of the Galway-Dublin line. It is important that we are having a public debate on this issue at a time when there is an obvious decline in the railway service. I speak from personal knowledge as a regular traveller on the Galway-Dublin line. Because of the decline in that service people began to see their was a danger — this has been referred to by Deputy Roche — of the line being run down to an uneconomic state. Up to a few years ago it was impossible to get a seat on a train — on the Galway-Dublin line but that is no longer the case. Many seats are vacant now because of the inadequate and uncertain service provided on the line in the past year. If one has to be at a certain place at a certain time but is constantly late, one will eventually decide not to use the service in question. If the number of people using the line is reduced dramatically over a period of one or two years the management of Iarnród Éireann might say it was an uneconomical line and, consequently, there would be a danger of its being closed.

There was a scare concerning the Galway line when, a few years ago, a new station was required in Athlone. Instead of replacing the old station on the western side of the Shannon a modern station was built on the eastern side of the river. This indicated that if in five or ten year's time a new bridge was required across the Shannon, costing perhaps £10 million or £15 million, the management might say the Galway line was uneconomical and would discontinue it at Athlone. That became an issue of public debate. Our spokesman on transport, Deputy Ivan Yates, attended an open meeting in Galway which was very well attended and where a very useful and helpful debate took place. Subsequent to that I was part of a deputation from Galway Corporation who met with the former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Séamus Brennan. He was able to give us an assurance that there was no danger of lines being closed, since the Government had realised there was a problem, £1 million would be pumped in immediately to the Galway-Dublin line as a gesture of the Government's support for the railway system and that expenditure in the next EC programme would be redressed in favour of the railway. It is extraordinary that in the five year EC capital operational programme £1 billion has been spent on roads and only £18 million on railways.

In regard to the Galway-Dublin line the position is that from Dublin to Portarlington there is continuous welded rail and for the remainder of the journey there is only a small section of continuous welded rail which makes the journey uncertain. If money was not to be ploughed into the railways during the next few years there was a danger — what some speakers have said about scaremongering — that railways would be run down and closed as has happened previously in our history.

Deputy Stafford said one could not have a more pleasant journey than that from Dublin to Galway. The only aspect I would quibble with is that if I were to travel from Galway today by train and return this evening the cost would be £10 whereas if I travelled from Dublin to Galway it would cost £22. That is an extraordinary difference. It encourages people to travel from Galway to Dublin to do their shopping but there is no encouragement whatever for the person travelling from Dublin to Galway to spend a day on the beach or to view the scenery which Deputy Stafford referred to. That problem must be redressed.

I welcome this debate on the run down of our railway system because now everybody, including the Government, is aware we could not continue in the direction in which we were going. I welcome the commitment by the former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications and I presume the new Minister Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn who is from my own constituency, will take up the campaign we have started.

I agree completely with the Fine Gael proposals outlined by my colleague, Deputy Yates, for a ten year development programme for the Irish rail network. It is an appalling aspect of Government policy that they did not apply to the EC for funding for the development or maintenance of the rail network in Ireland. That is an incredible statistic for any government to try to defend.

As Deputy McCormack and others have said, we all become parochial on issues such as this. The railways with which I am most familiar is the infamous Sligo-Dublin line. As a frequent user of that service it is disheartening when the train stops at numerous locations on the line because of difficulties with the line and the signals. It reminds me of the infamous Percy French song, "Are you right there Michael......" I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is a gentleman who appreciates theatre but I do not know whether Standing Orders would allow for a song in the House but I will not push it. Certainly that song — if I could sing — would sum up the condition of the Sligo-Dublin rail line at this stage. Percy French was 50 years ahead of his time because when he wrote the words he must have been thinking of the non development of the service into the west and north west.

I hope the new Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communication, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, is successful in obtaining funding from the EC. She gave a commitment in the House last evening that she would try to obtain such funding. I sincerely request her to give priority to the Sligo-Dublin line. My colleague, Deputy Nealon, outlined for the House last evening that the first train from Dublin to Sligo which ran in 1836 was actually faster than the present day train. That gives an indication of the development of the rail service and is another poignant statistic.

The speed on the line last year was 50 miles per hour, it is reduced to 40 miles per hour this year and next year, I presume, it will be just 30 miles per hour. If we proceed on that basis we will be at a full stop in three years time. In that case the services of Deputies Belton, Nealon or myself might not be available to House and that could be of grave consequence to the people of the country.

I hope the Minister will give priority to the Sligo-Dublin line when funding becomes available to allow for the provision of automatic signalling facilities, a continuous welded line and new rolling stock. It is because the present rail service is so unsatisfactory that we are not able to tap the potential of the tourism industry in the west and north-west, in particular in Sligo, Leitrim and Longford. I hope therefore that the Taoiseach will use his good offices to have this line brought up to an acceptable standard.

The time remaining after both Deputy Belton and I have spoken will be given to Deputy Byrne.

Deputy McCormack indicated that.

I named the wrong party.

Deputy Reynolds stole some of my opening lines but the words of the famous Percy French song "Are you right there Michael .... do you think we will be there before the night" could be paraphrased in relation to north Dublin to read "Do you think we will be there before we lose our jobs". According to local history, in 1900 the train journey, by steam engine, from Malahide took 22 minutes but nowadays with modern technology, according to the present timetable, the journey takes approximately 20 minutes. This represents an improvement of two minutes, or approximately 1.3 seconds per year since 1900. If we had that improvement it would not be too bad but the story is altogether different.

Many times throughout the year the service on the commuter line from Balbriggan to Dublin is delayed by up to 35 to 40 minutes either because the train breaks down outside the station, of DART connections, signal faults, high winds, leaves, ice or flooding along the line, seagulls flying into signal boxes, vandalism, sick drivers and problems with Telecom Éireann. I am not making up these complaints, they are the reasons given to me in relation to the problems experienced with that line.

Thousands of commuters use that line from Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush, Lusk, Donabate, Malahide and Portmarnock each day. They pay a higher price for their seven day commuter ticket than those lucky enough to be living near the DART line, and for what? They are provided with an unreliable, inadequate and partial service. Furthermore, there are no trains on a Sunday. Therefore, those who buy a seven day ticket are limited to using it on six days only. A limited service is provided on a Saturday and the first train leaves too late for those who have to work on that day, such as those who work in shops, restaurants and hotels. Indeed, the service was so bad this winter — this is hard to believe — that Iarnród Éireann were forced to send fax messages to employers to confirm that their employees would arrive late at work because the train had been delayed to ensure that employees would keep their jobs.

The locomotives used are over 30 years old; they are so old that maintenance staff have to travel on the train each day. Having listened to Deputy Roche, I now know where some of our trains go. At weekends, and in particular bank holiday weekends, trains on that commuter line are cancelled so that trains can service inter-city rail links. That is no way to run a rail service. What sort of country do we have when trains are borrowed from one line when one runs out of them on another? All over the world cities are examining ways to provide light rail services, for environmental, efficiency and social reasons, in an effort to move a large volume of people quickly and cheaply.

I appeal to the Minister of State who is present — I congratulate him on his appointment — to proceed urgently with his plans to provide a light rail system in Dublin city and county. I ask him to make provision for a link to Dublin Airport as this must be the only city in Europe without a direct rail link to its airport. I ask him to consider the possibility of providing a rail link to Swords which currently has a population of 22,500 with the potential to increase to 39,500. Yet, it has no rail link even though Dublin County Council have set aside valleys of land for such a link.

I put it to the Minister of State that he should use his good offices at European Community level to obtain the funding that is available for mobile assets. I should like to point out to him that the former Minister in his Department, Deputy Séamus Brennan, clearly stated in a briefing document presented to the British-Irish parliamentary group that "as far as the Irish Government were concerned, the Belfast-Dublin link was not competing with domestic interests for funding or priority". He gave a commitment that the Belfast-Dublin link was due to be upgraded. I hope the Minister of State will take the message from this debate that we should be looking at our rail links all over the country and recognise that this is the mode of transport that we should opt for in the future.

I am glad to have this opportunity, even though my time is short, to speak to this motion. I congratulate Deputy Yates for taking the initiative and raising this important and pressing issue in the House. I also wish to congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment.

As a Deputy from Longford, I have been extremely concerned for the past year about the future of the Dublin-Sligo line. The reason I am so concerned is that approximately £2 million was to have been spent on that line last year but for various reasons this did not happen. Naturally enough, there is an uproar about this issue. Commuters on that line have been provided with a very bad service during the past few years through no fault of the employees of Iarnród Éireann but due to an outdated signalling system which should have been replaced years ago. As a result, there are many delays. When this money was not spent last year people began to realise that if the trend continued the future of the line would be in jeopardy.

There is no point in the Government side accusing us of scaremongering. When Mr. David Waters, the chairman of Iarnród Éireann, attended a meeting of Longford County Council he told us loud and clear that this was a matter for the politicians and that Iarnród Éireann did not have enough money. This issue has been highlighted by my colleagues, Deputy Gerry Reynolds and Deputy Nealon who could be described as the "Boxcar Willie" of the Dublin-Sligo line. He has been referring to it for some time now.

While there is no point in dwelling too much on our mistakes we have got to learn from them. If extra funding from Europe is spent on the railways we will be making progress. Everyone agrees that it simply does not make sense to allow all traffic enter Dublin by road. The counties I am talking about cover almost one-third of the country — Westmeath, Longford, Roscommon, Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal — and I give a guarantee that if there is no rail service serving that area politicians will argue in this House for the rail service. However, we do have this facility but it has been allowed deteriorate. My message therefore to the Minister of State, and his Department, is that they should make sure an application is submitted to obtain these funds and that the Government should match them so that we can guarantee the future of the Dublin-Sligo line. It is essential that this service is maintained.

I speak in support of the motion for a number of reasons, one, because rail plays a crucial role as a mode of public transport and because it also plays a vital role in the transportation of goods, carrying everything from bulk quantities of cement from Arigna to transporting dangerous and toxic chemicals. It is crucial that the public, as the fee-paying passengers, can feel that rail traffic is safe. It is of equal importance that the wider public are assured that the railway system can safely carry highly dangerous chemicals like ammonia and acrilo-nitrate. Imagine the catastrophe if even one of the containers carrying dangerous chemicals which travel regularly from Dublin to Asahi left the rails.

All over Europe huge investments are being made in railway lines with the aim of getting people and goods to their destination faster. In Ireland our trains are going more slowly. On some of our lines speeds have been progressively reduced for safety reasons. Brendan O'Dowda singing the Percy French song, "Are you right there Michael, are you right, do you think that we'll be there before tonight" mentioned so often in the House tonight, could well be the anthem of many passengers. What sort of backward policy do we have when we compare the Percy French type railway network with, for example, the system in Europe like the bullet train in Japan and the record breaking TGV system in France? I should also mention the light rail systems of Grenoble and Manchester. There must be greater investment in rail at the expense of roads. We must march with the times and recognise that there are many tried, trusted and proven methods of conveying passengers and goods by rail. We should invest in a light rail system for Dublin and secure and upgrade the main inter-city lines.

We must not make fools of ourselves in Europe by rejecting European funds to, for example, upgrade the Dublin-Belfast line, particularly when Northern Ireland Railways are willing to make their contribution. We should shake ourselves free of the old ideological motivated antipathy to rail, felt and expressed by successive Ministers for Transport, that because it is public it deserves to die and that if it dies somehow or other there will be a saving to the public purse.

Is the Minister aware of the various combined transport techniques in operation in Europe which can play such an important role in the transportation of goods in this country? If she is, I ask her to put her knowledge into action. It must now be clear to everyone that the rail system has reached a very critical stage and that unless there is proper investment much of the system will decline rapidly and will almost certainly face closure. We are paying a high price for the failures of successive Governments to put a reasonable level of investment in the railway system. Indeed, if you exclude the DART, the only parts of the railway system which approach anything like acceptable standards in terms of rolling stock and the condition of the permanent way are the Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast lines.

It cannot be that the Government were unaware of the need for more investment. In every recent year when they published their annual report, CIE warned of the deteriorating situation and set out their case for increased investment. Only last November the managing director of Irish Rail, Mr. Dave Waters, put it in stark terms when he said: "If the company cannot renew its assets there will, inevitably, be a downgrading of lines".

Railway tracks needing immediate attention include the Sligo, Westport, Rosslare and Tralee lines. This will not come as any news to the hundreds of thousands of commuters who have had to endure lengthening journey times, ancient and decrepit carriages and more and more frequent breakdowns. Conditions on the Sligo line have been particularly bad; those in the Galway line are not much better. Many people in Sligo and along the route served by the Sligo train are convinced that a political decision has been made to allow the line to deteriorate to such an extent that there will be no alternative to closure. When you look at the evidence their fears are understandable. The best overall speed on the line is now down to 42 miles per hour, meaning a journey of three and a quarter hours.

The importance of the railway connection to towns like Galway and Sligo are illustrated by the proportion of commuters carried by rail. The rail line carries 49 per cent of all passenger traffic going from Sligo to Dublin and 19 per cent of traffic going in the opposite direction. The figures for Galway are 45 per cent and 22 per cent respectively. If the rail lines are allowed to continue to deteriorate — or worse, close down — it will be a body blow to these areas.

Almost 35 years on, tens of thousands of commuters, trapped daily in traffic jams on the south side of Dublin, have reason to curse those who made the decision to close the old Harcourt Street line. More than three decades later, the Government have been forced to look at that decision again and consider plans for reopening the line, initially as a busway and later as a light rail system. Let us ensure that the same short-sighted attitude which forced the closure of the Harcourt Street line is not allowed to deprive the people of Sligo and Galway of their rail lines.

There are economic, social and environmental reasons for preserving and developing the railway network. When proper investment is made, railways are probably the most efficient, reliable and safest way of travelling. The environmental value of the railway should not be underestimated. Many small towns and villages throughout the country are being choked to death by the level of motor traffic. The aim must be to be to get more people off the roads and onto the rail system. This will not be done unless we have a system which is safe, reliable and economic.

A train can carry several hundred people yet the fuel used will be only a fraction of that used by the cars required to carry the same number of people. The pollution caused by a train is insignificant compared to the environmental damage caused by hundreds of cars ploughing through small villages. The value of the railways in regard to freight is even more dramatic. Many of our roads are simply not suitable for the sort of heavy goods vehicles which are now used for freight. People who live along the routes used by the monsters will testify to the environmental damage caused by noise, vibration and fumes, not to mention the psychological damage caused to householders. The argument for getting freight off the road and on the railways is even stronger than for passengers. Unfortunately, we do not have an extensive rail network but we must protect and develop what we have and ensure that it is used to the greatest degree possible.

Rail systems are not cheap and they cost a lot of money to maintain. It is labour intensive and demanding and a high level of maintenance and inspection is required to ensure the highest safety standards. However, they are worth it. Comments are sometimes made — often by representatives of private transport interests — about the amount of public money spent in subsidising the rail system. Of course Irish Rail have to maintain the permanent way, one of the most expensive aspects of the rail system, but private hauliers do not have to pay for the construction or maintenance of roads or environmental damage.

We should not let this debate pass without referring to the Dublin-Belfast rail line which has faced its own unique problems in recent years because of the systematic attacks on it by the Provisional IRA. A month rarely passes without a bomb attack on the rail line and bomb scares are even more frequent. It is, of course, ironic, that these attacks on a vital link between Dublin and Belfast are carried out by an organisation which claim to want to unite Ireland, yet they keep us apart. Every attack places in jeopardy the lives of the passengers, staff on the railways and employees on the train.

While the standards on the Dublin-Belfast line are better than those on most other lines it is a particular important link which requires adequate finance and developmnet. The EC has made it clear that money is available from the Community to upgrade the line. The authorities in Northern Ireland have made it clear that they want this to go ahead but there seems to be some reluctance down here to take up the option of EC money. We must ensure that we do not bring about, through neglect, what the Provos have been unable to achieve through persistent bombing, that is, closure of the line. I thank the Fine Gael group for giving me those ten minutes which were much appreciated.

The Chair wishes to join in the words of congratulations to the Minister of State, Deputy Kenneally, and invites him, as it were — to make his maiden ministerial journey.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I wish to thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their messages of goodwill. Some of the contributions made by Deputies across the Floor had a great musical content. However, they all seemed to be set to the same tune. I wonder if it is a case of great minds thinking alike or perhaps of fools seldom differing.

In supporting the amendment to this motion, I endorse fully the comments made last evening by my colleagues, the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, concerning the Government's commitment to the rail network and general policy on the railways.

The State subvention of over £940 million to Irish Rail since 1980 is more than adequate testimony of the Government's support for the railway system in Ireland. The decision to conduct an urgent strategic review of the future investment needs and resources required for the railways is the most practical and sensible means of identifying the options for the future of the railway retwork, as well as the costs, investment requirements and funding possibilities, including EC funding, of all these options.

The result of the strategic study will comprise an essential element in the formulation of the spending programme to be drawn up for the next phase of Structural Funds and the new cohesion fund. As the Minister has made clear, it is intended to seek a greater share of significantly increased EC funds for public transport generally and for the railway network in particular.

The Exchequer subvention to CIE for 1992 amounts to £108 million, of which approximately £90 million is being allocated to Irish Rail. This includes £45 million which will be spent on the maintenance and upkeep of infrastructure including tracks, sleepers, signalling systems, bridges, level crossings, etc., and a further £45 million to support the operation of socially necessary services which are not fully commercial, and to meet interest and other costs, including the interest on loans taken out to fund the DART. The allocation of these resources is a matter entirely for the operational and commercial judgment of CIE and Irish Rail.

At a time when the Exchequer is under financial pressure, with many urgent and competing demands for funding across the spectrum of the State's activities, the continuing allocation of large amounts of taxpayer's money to the railway network leaves no room for doubt about the importance which the Government attach to public transport which is a vital element in the social, economic and commercial life of this country.

Public transport, in common with other sectors has to deal with the reality of reduced availability of Exchequer funding. In response to these pressures, Iarnród Éireann have improved competitiveness, efficiency and cost effectiveness in the provision of services. In these difficult circumstances, Iarnród Éireann deserve credit and recognition for their achievements over the past few years which have seen passenger and freight volumes increases.

The Government do not have any "hidden agenda" to starve the rail network of investment or close the railways by subterfuge or deliberate lack of financial support. It has been repeatedly confirmed in recent times that there are no proposals before the Minister or the Department for the clousre or downgrading of any part of the rail network, and this remains the position.

As part of the continuing upgrading of equipment on the rail network, Irish Rail are engaged on a major re-signalling investment programme on the line between Malahide and Drogheda at a cost of £3.4 million. The company have also commenced plans for the replacement, with EC assistance, of gantries at Limerick, Sligo, Cork and Dundalk. In addition, Irish Rail are investing £17 million on new railcars to be used on a number of commuter rail lines.

I would also add that the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications is currently finalising consideration of a number of major public transport projects, including the provision of a commuter rail service on the south-west rail corridor, including Clondalkin; upgrading of the Dublin-Belfast line, about which I am sure Deputy Owen will be very pleased, provision of a rail link to the Belview harbour development in Waterford and work on the restoration of the former Harcourt Street line. The provision of EC assistance for these projects is also being pursued.

There has been much media comment of late arising from the outcome of a recent study commissioned by the previous Minister and the chairman of CIE on the rail safety situation in Irish Rail. I wish to take this opportunity to allay any fears the travelling public may have concerning the safety of rail operations in Ireland. The consultant's study concluded that the railway is being operated to an acceptable level of safety. However, the consultant's report also includes a number of recommendations for action to improve safety standards in Irish Rail. Most of the recommendations relate to improvements in the application of existing rules and regulations, as well as to improved training and work practices. Implementation of the report's recommendations is already in progress within Iarnród Éireann.

Iarnród Éireann at all times operate services on a basis designed to ensure optimum safety standards. I understand from the chairman of CIE that the company have detailed and extensive procedures in place to ensure the safe operation of railway services at all times, as is required under the Transport Act, 1950, and other relevant legislation.

As regards the proposal to include responsibility for rail within the remit of the proposed National Roads Authority, I do not feel that such a move would entail any practical or administrative advantage. The National Roads Authority will have the clear objective of improving the national roads network and co-ordinating the activities of local authorities throughout the State which have responsibilities in that regard. No such co-ordinating requirement arises in relation to the railways, as we already have a single organisation for the rail network, operating under the aegis of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications. Transferring some element of responsibility for rail to the National Roads Authority would only cloud the issues, diverting the attention and energy of the Authority from their roads mandate and inhibiting the pursuit of an integrated and coherent public transport policy.

Finally, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all Deputies for their valuable contributions to this debate. I urge the House to endorse the Government's policy, and I commend the amendment to the House.

I am sure the House appreciates Deputy Yates consideration in respect of time.

In concluding this debate, I should like at the outset to congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment. As a Deputy who comes from a neighbouring constituency I wish him well. I believe he must be particularly pleased about the provision of a rail link to the Belview harbour development.

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate. I was particularly interested in the contributions by the Fianna Fáil backbench TDs. When Deputy Roche did not attack me on this Private Members' motion I knew I was on to a sure and certain winner. Even he had to agree that this debate is worthy of full consideration.

In this debate Fine Gael sought a Government commitment on a number of specific things. These may be classified as new departures. First, we sought the segregation of the funding of the track from the railway company. As I said last night, there is an EC Directive which I believe will mandate us to move in this direction. Second, we sought a clear commitment that inter-city rail services would be funded from EC moneys in the next tranche of funding and if cohesion funds are made available in 1993 that they would be made available for this purpose. We believe that those moneys should be spent on continuous welded rail and automatic computerised signalling throughout the inter-city network.

In general, I was pleased with the debate and the Minister's disposition last night. However, one thing disturbed me deeply and as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows, I am not one who is easily disturbed. This related to one of the Minister's statements. I know that Ministers are busy people and that scripts can be thrust into their hands but I was particulalry disturbed when the Minister, in referring to the lengthy, strategic, detailed study being commissioned, said: "I will consider whether any further work either by way of the appointment of a railway commission or engagement of consultants or some other combination of both is desirable before bringing this matter before the Government". As I understand it the Government's position is that not only is a strategic study to be carried out but when we receive the results of that study, a commission, consultants, another committee or a task force will consider it.

I did not say that. The Deputy is misrepresenting me. I said "if it were desirable".

I do not wish to misinterpret her. This is what I call paralysis by analysis, and it is unacceptable. What is required is an investment plan. We have set out very simply the amount that needs to be provided: £42 million for the Dublin-Belfast line, including £33 million for the track and £9 million for rolling stock. The amount necessary for radial routes from Dublin to all parts of the country is £240 million. That would provide for the track, continuous welded rail and computerised signalling. It will take time to carry out that work but it will require a clear political direction. As David Waters has said to every local authority and group of public representatives who are interested, this requires not another study but a political commitment, and this is what we have sought.

Irish Rail have done an enormously successful job in relation to passenger numbers and they have enormous potential to increase their freight market. Some 10 per cent of the total freight market is carried by Irish Rail. That includes mostly bulk carriers — oil, cement, fertilisers and so on. However their potential is 17 per cent or 18 per cent of the total freight market and that potential should be realised.

The traffic analysis on the main corridors shows a clear preference, within the context of public transport, for trains. In 1990 a detailed survey was carried out of the seven inter-urban corridors, from Dublin-Belfast right around to Dublin-Rosslare. That survey showed that 24 per cent of people travel by train although trains are sometimes late and, as with the Dublin-Sligo line, the service is unreliable. That is eight times more than the number who use bus Éireann and eight times more than the number who use the private bus service. Very often a return journey by private bus is £5 while the same journey by rail is £15. Similarly the break-down of numbers travelling on specific corridors shows the percentage of those who travel by train on the following routes: Cork to Dublin, 72 per cent; Tralee to Dublin, 62 per cent; Limerick to Dublin, 51 per cent and Wexford to Dublin, 18 per cent.

Irish Rail's investment plan would reduce the travelling time of trains. For example, on the Dublin-Rosslare line the journey would be reduced by 25 minutes. We all know that the volume of road traffic is increasing and Irish Rail should take action to improve the railways. On the Dublin-Silgo line there could be a saving of 40 minutes, reducing the journey to two hours 40 minutes. On the Dublin-Westport line the journey could be reduced by half an hour to three hours and the journey from Tralee to Dublin could be reduced by 25 minutes to three hours 15 minutes. This is a good plan and all that is required is a political commitment.

As regards track renewal, Irish Rail have clearly spelled out that they are behind in their investment programme and that at the present rate of funding it will take until the year 2010 to even maintain the track not to speak of providing continuous welded rail or computerised signalling. In relation to signalling what is needed is a computerised approach. At present the system in operation is called ETS or electric token system. This system is so bizarre that at some stations when people get off the train the driver has to put out his hand for a round rod to ensure that there is a link on the line. This system is 100 years old and is totally out of date.

In relation to class 001 locomotives which have a life expectancy of 40 years, 44 of them were commissioned in 1955. That means that by the year 1995 they will be puffed out and will be unable to do the job. Irish Rail, in their present straitjacket, cannot finance their commitments for rolling stock. They should be relieved of the burden of paying for the infrastructure and, out of their own resources and the social subvention, they would be able to meet the need for the rolling stock. Irish Rail deserve enormous credit for the work they have done in pioneering services at a time of no political support.

I would like to briefly turn again to the safety issue. I have not said that the railways are unsafe. I have repeated what has been said by the Kennedy-Henderson Group from Surrey in England who reported on 3 December. Their executive summary is included in the report which, I regret the Minister has declined to publish. I quote three short sections in relation to their conclusions:

In comparison to British Rail (BR), IE's safety performance would appear to be lower in key areas such as passenger and staff safety.

The condition of IE assets is declining through lack of investment which is beginning to affect reliability.

It then goes on to make the telling statement which is my key point: "Today's reliability problem could become tomorrow's safety problem". If the Minister continues with her predecessor's policy of neglecting the railways and getting no support from EC funding she should not be surprised if there is a major derailment as a result of a fracture on a line. The unfortunate passengers in three or four years time will suffer the consequences of the failure to invest in continuous welded rail. The ultimate sentence in this report is that IE — Iarnród Éireann — is neither absolutely safe nor absolutely unsafe. The fact that Iarnród Éireann is not absolutely safe is of the deepest concern to me and my party.

Much play has been made by the Minister in her reply to the fact that we do not want to combine the National Roads Authority with the National Roads and Rail Authority. There is no single ministry for transport in this country. The Department of the Environment perceived as a spending Department, have to fund a massive roads programme. The Department of the Marine, which is responsible for harbours and shipping, get funding for a separate leg of the transport area. The Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications are seen as an administrative Department dealing with liberalisation of bus competition and aviation issues. What is needed is a system similar to that in operation in virtually all European countries whereby one transport department deals with aviation, roads, haulage, harbours, shipping and so on. In that way we could have an integrated plan and there would be fair play in relation to EC investment.

Now is the time for a political commitment. We do not need more studies, commissions, reports or analyses. We have asked that Irish Rail be given an even break. There would be an enormous short term benefit for investments in this area in that Irish Rail would save £3 million per annum on the `band aid' temporary repairs which have to be carried out on the railway lines at present. We need a corporate plan for Irish Rail, a plan to ensure a secure future for the railways, for the 5,700 employees of Irish Rail and the 25 million passengers who use the system. That secure future is within a framework of a solid investment plan that will for the first time utilise EC funds and will for the first time say that there is to be equality between roads and rail because it is the same infrastructure. As I said last night, the simplest example I can use is that for the 800 buses in our capital city of Dublin, a sum of £250,000 is paid for the privilege of using the road network, yet Irish Rail has to pay £45 million for using their surface, the railway track.

I commend our motion to the House. I thank all the other Opposition parties for their support. I believe that it is only through such a corporate plan that we can secure the future of our railways.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 64.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Calley, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finucane, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Foxe, Tom.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Boylan and D'Arcy.
Amendment declared carried.
Question: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to" put and declared carried.
Top
Share