Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Oct 2001

Vol. 542 No. 4

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2001 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2001, to the House. I have already initiated the Bill in the Seanad where we had a useful and interesting discussion. Amendments agreed on Committee Stage have led to greater clarity in certain aspects of the Bill. The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for: the establishment of an independent and commercial statutory State body, the Railway Procurement Agency; a single statutory railway order procedure for the approval of railway infrastructure projects, including light rail and metro; and the regulation of light rail services when operating on street.

As its title indicates, the main focus of the Bill is on railway infrastructure. Provision of high quality infrastructure to support a reliable and efficient public transport system is one of the greatest challenges facing us today. This is particularly true in the case of our urban centres where an increasing level of car ownership has resulted in a serious problem of congestion which, if unchecked, will threaten our future economic prosperity.

The national development plan sets out a public transport investment strategy for the period 2000-06 designed to achieve a radical transformation of the public transport system. Investment of £2.2 billion is provided for in the plan for public transport. This is an unprecedented level of funding which will enable significant advances to be made in the coming years.

I am pleased to report progress to date in delivering a number of public transport projects under the NDP. For example, since 1999, 275 additional buses have been acquired by Dublin Bus, 16 new DART carriages entered into service this year, 60 ARROW rail cars have been ordered with delivery commencing in 2003, and 148 new buses were acquired by Bus Éireann in 2000 – 40 for the greater Dublin area and the remainder for use in provincial cities, towns and for rural services. In addition, Dublin Bus has acquired 156 replacement buses in the past two years. I am pleased also to report that an improved rail service to Maynooth commenced in August last.

In addition, a railway safety programme is under way involving investment of £430 million by Iarnród Éireann in the period 1999 to 2003. To date in excess of 220 miles of track have been upgraded as part of this programme along with safety improvements to 189 level crossings, with work on some 50 further crossings to take place before the year end. Approximately 190 bridges have been renewed with work on a further 45 to be completed by end of year. This safety work will continue in 2002. I intend to publish a Bill later this year to provide for the establishment of a new regulatory framework for railway safety.

Turning to the light rail system for Dublin to which this Government has been committed, I am glad to report significant progress in the provision of the first phase of the Luas involving services from Tallaght to Connolly Station and from Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green. Almost all utilities and enabling works contracts have been awarded and many have now been completed. The main construction contract involving track laying and cabling has been awarded and work is progressing satisfactorily. The depot at the Red Cow has been completed. Some 40 trams have been ordered and the first will be delivered in the coming weeks. A competition for the award of the operator's contract for the first lines is progressing with a view to the preferred candidate being selected by the end of 2001. The construction of both lines remains on target for completion in 2003 with passenger services commencing shortly afterwards.

Commuters from Tallaght and Sandyford who will travel on Luas into the city centre will enjoy a quality and reliable service which will serve as an example of the standard that public transport can and must deliver for the future. Extensions of Luas and a metro are also badly needed to serve other parts of the city. The Dublin Transportation Office strategy document, A Platform for Change, sets out the measures that need to be taken to provide a public transport network to meet the demands of the coming years. The proposals in the document are being examined at present. As Members may be aware, the Government has already approved, in principle, the development of a metro system for Dublin. Immediately following this decision, I asked the light rail project office of CIE to commence the necessary preparatory work and report progress to me on a regular basis.

We are now on the brink of an era of reform in the public transport sector and that is why new structures are required to deliver quality public transport projects. The construction of the metro and the extension of the light rail network will require the focus and attention of an implementing body and that is why I propose, under the Bill, to establish the Railway Procurement Agency. In the meantime, in order to allow the preparatory work to continue, I have appointed an interim railway procurement agency to take a preliminary position on the procurement process pending enactment of this Bill.

The ongoing work on Luas of which I have spoken is being co-ordinated by the light rail project office of CIE. This office, suitably restructured and expanded, will form the starting point for the new agency. In line with the July 2000 Government decision on light rail, a franchise will be allocated for the operation of the Luas lines. I intend that the Railway Procurement Agency, when established, will be the contracting authority for this franchise. Appointment of the interim agency last July will ensure that there will be minimum delay in formally establishing the agency once the legislation is in place.

The light rail project office has already commenced initial feasibility work for the procurement of the metro. I will bring specific proposals on the metro development to Government in the coming weeks with a view to commencing the procurement process before the end of the year.

As always, money will play a vital role in determining the priorities for the construction of projects. The magnitude of the public transport infrastructure projects identified and the costings means that the Exchequer alone will not be in a position to provide all of the funding required. We must look at new ways of financing large infrastructural projects as outlined in the national development plan and the DTO strategy. In this regard, the proper application of public-private partnerships, PPPs, offers huge potential benefits to the State in meeting this investment gap. The emphasis in any PPP should be on genuine collaboration between the private and public sectors, combining traditional public sector values with the perceived efficiencies of the private sector in order to deliver high quality public capital infrastructure and services. Advantages of PPPs, such as value for money, optimum risk allocation, the inherent focus on services and accelerated delivery of projects, have considerable appeal for major transport projects. The Bill gives the Railway Procurement Agency all the necessary powers to apply the most appropriate procurement process, including PPP, in the delivery of its projects.

In Ireland, the success of the overall PPP programme must also be closely linked to our social partnership model. This system of delivering stability through consensus on major economic, social and other issues is one of the main reasons for our recent economic success. Successful PPPs must also be built on the development and maintenance of trust between key stakeholders and shared objectives for the delivery to the public of quality public transport. In this context, I welcome the input of the wide group of social partners represented on the public transport partnership forum to transport policy generally and the preparation of the Bill.

The work done by the public-private advisory group on PPPs in developing a framework for public-private partnerships is also extremely important. The advisory group includes representatives of the social partners in addition to departmental PPP units. I am pleased to note that this framework has been agreed by all parties and will be formally launched by the Minister for Finance on 1 November. It represents an important step in clarifying guidelines for participation of the public and private sectors in PPP arrangements. In addition, it will ensure there is a coherent and consistent approach across the public service in advancing Ireland's PPP programme. The advisory group will also monitor and review implementation and adherence to the framework. The Railway Procurement Agency will be required to conform with these guidelines.

I welcome the support the ICTU has given to the Bill. In its recently published document, The Route to Success, it recognises the need for the creation of a railway procurement agency with the remit to procure an operator for Luas and ensure the development of the metro in Dublin through PPP. In order to advance the application of PPP for construction of the metro my Department recently undertook a market consultation exercise on the procurement of the metro. The response to the consultation has been positive, with a significant level of response from major companies both in Ireland and across the world. An analysis of the responses has taken place and will assist with the preparation of procurement documentation.

This consultation will lead to what will be a key factor in the success of PPPs in transport, the development of a PPP public transport model appropriate to Ireland and which has the potential to contribute to the delivery of high quality public services. My Department undertook a consultation process on the proposals contained in the general scheme of the Bill and the views of the parties which responded have been taken into consideration in its drafting.

The Bill is separated into five main parts. Part 1 contains standard sections covering the short title, interpretations, repeals, continuations and so forth. Part 2 deals with the establishment of the Railway Procurement Agency. Part 3 details the statutory approval procedures for any new railway infrastructural project. Part 4 deals with the on-street regulation of light railways and Part 5 contains various miscellaneous provisions.

Part 1 contains many standard provisions in relation to the short title of the Bill, the interpretation of words and phrases used and procedures under the Bill for laying orders and regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas. In particular, section 3 provides for the repeal of sections 2 to 11 of the Transport Act, 1963, and the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act, 1996, which deal with the approval process for heavy and light rail projects respectively. However, many of the provisions of the 1996 Act will be re-enacted in Part 3 of the Bill. It is proposed that a single statutory approval mechanism will be introduced for heavy rail and light rail, central to which is a mandatory public inquiry prior to the granting of a railway order.

Part 2, sections 8 to 35, contains sections directly related to the establishment of the Railway Procurement Agency and are similar to many found in other legislation establishing commercial State bodies. There are provisions dealing with the establishment of subsidiaries, annual reports and accounts and the format of such accounts as well as the appointment of the board, the chief executive and staff of the agency. The agency will be required to account for its activi ties if called before a committee of one or both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The functions of the agency are set out in section 11. They will relate to the procurement of metro and light rail. The possibility of extending the remit of the agency to all railway infrastructure will be considered in the context of possible future legislation relating to the regulation of the public transport market generally. It is proposed in section 11 that the agency may enter into agreements with other bodies to finance such projects by means of concession, joint venture, public-private partnership or any other means and to acquire and facilitate the development of land close to a railway where such acquisition and development will contribute to the economic viability of the railway.

Provisions in relation to the composition of the agency, its chief executive and staff are dealt with in sections 20 to 29. These provisions follow recent examples of legislation establishing new State bodies. Section 24 allows the agency to appoint staff and provides for the transfer of staff of the CIE light rail project office to the agency. Sections 33 to 35 provide a mechanism for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities, and the continuation of any pending legal proceedings in relation to the Dublin light railway project, from CIE to the agency.

Part 3, sections 36 to 53, deals with the statutory approval procedure for applications for railway orders to construct, operate and maintain railway infrastructure. It applies provisions similar to those contained in the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act, 1996, which makes the holding of a public inquiry mandatory for all such applications. I am satisfied that these arrangements have worked well for Luas and should be maintained. In that regard, I pay tribute to Judge O'Leary and those who helped him on that project.

Railway developments, as authorised by the Minister and as specified in a railway order, are to be exempted development in the context of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. However, the interests of planning authorities and the public are protected by other provisions in the Bill which require statutory consultation with the planning authorities and any person directly affected by the proposed railway works. Furthermore, any application for a railway order must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement.

Before making a decision on whether to grant a railway order section 43 obliges the Minister to consider the application and accompanying documentation, the report of the public inquiry and any submissions made by any person or planning authority. Where the Minister is of the opinion that an application for a railway should be granted, he or she will make an order subject to such conditions, restrictions, requirements or other terms as he or she sees fit. A railway order cannot come into operation until a two month period for application for judicial review has expired or on the determination or withdrawal of such judicial review.

Part 4 of the Bill, sections 54 to 62, deals with the on-street regulation of light railways. Although the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act, 1996, made general legal provision for the construction and operation of light railways, it did not deal with the specific legal aspects of its day-to-day operation and, in particular, its operation on-street. The regulation of traffic is the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and governed by the Road Traffic Acts. As these Acts apply only to "mechanically propelled vehicles," the definition of which specifically excludes trams, the Bill extends certain necessary provisions of these Acts to ensure they cover light rail vehicles. Among the safety matters covered in this part are speed limits and qualifications and competencies required by a driver of a light rail vehicle.

The final part of the Bill, Part 5, sections 63 to 71, contains miscellaneous provisions such as the creation of penalties for trespass on a railway or unlawful use of a railway. In addition, the Minister or the agency may make by-laws in relation to railways under section 65. Provision is also made for CIE, with the consent of the Minister of the day and the Minister for Finance, to set up one or more subsidiary companies under the Companies Act.

Section 71 amends the Transport (Re-Organisation of CIE) Act, 1986, to allow for an increase in the number of board members of the three CIE subsidiaries Iarnród Éireann, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. This has the effect of increasing the maximum number of directors and removes the requirement to have a majority of directors common to both Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann. This is designed to give each of the bodies a stronger strategic focus and in the case of larnród Éireann is consistent with the recommendations in the report of the three wise men, The Way Forward, published last July.

This Bill plays an important role in providing a structure under which railway infrastructure can be developed. Once this agency is in place we will begin to see real progress in having a metro and future extensions of the light rail system to parts of the city where demand will increase in the coming years. In parallel, the focus of the agency will be on ensuring that Luas operates within schedule. All the indications are that this is happening. The Luas vehicles are already arriving and in two years' time, a light rail service will begin operating from Sandyford and Tallaght to the city centre.

While I want debate on this Bill, I hope it will have an early passage into law. I say that without at all cutting across the democratic process, which is, that any Member who wants to is entitled to speak on any Bill. I commend this Bill to the House.

(Mayo): I wish to share my time with Deputy Enright.

(Mayo): The first thought that springs to mind is whether this new procurement agency is necessary. The travelling public will feel justified in asking whether the level or quality of service which they can expect will be improved. Their primary concern is whether the new agency will provide a higher standard of service than that which they could have expected if management of the new lines had been left to the existing management agencies, the holding company, CIE, and the management company, Iarnród Éireann.

Apart from the fact that CIE has been starved of resources over the years, a large question mark hangs over the manner in which CIE and Iarnród Éireann management have performed. As that aspect is the subject of an inquiry in a different forum, I cannot comment further on that.

We are now well into 2001 and, as far as I am aware, there is still not a train timetable for this new year. When one queries the matter, one is told it is the same as for 2000. That is not good enough.

The industrial relations track record of the company has been appalling. This State rail company owned by the Minister has left the nation's commuters stranded time and again. While the unions must shoulder their share of the blame, particularly where lightning strikes and unofficial strikes are concerned, there is undoubtedly an ongoing human resource management malaise within the company. The company has brought in somebody whom they describe as a human resource manager, but the human resource management within the company is not adequate or satisfactory. I am not satisfied that the heavyweights brought in by the Minister have sorted out the difficulties in the area of industrial relations. I hope I am wrong, time will tell.

The Minister for Public Enterprise in a number of her policy statements has made integrated ticketing one of her main flagship proposals. We have listened to its merits being extolled in successive debates and in press announcements. Integrated ticketing would cost very little. Its advantages are obvious. All that is required is imagination, organisation and co-ordination, yet it has not happened. We have listened to the Minister laud the advantages of park and ride. It is a perfectly logical proposal. The idea was that up to 10% of commuters would switch to public transport. They would abandon their cars at established locations on the outer perimeters of the city and would take either the bus or the train for the remainder of their journey into the city. While a certain limited amount of park and ride has happened in terms of bus transport nothing has happened in terms of train usage.

One of the projects to be managed by the new agency is Luas. We heard the Minister in the House yesterday and today talk about the Luas being completed in 2003. She makes a subtle distinction between completed and commissioned, as to when the project will be completed as against when it will be up and running. It will not be up and running in 2003. Preliminary work got off to a bad start 18 months behind schedule. Construction work will take at least another 18 months and the training of drivers and testing of the system could take from a year to 18 months. The truth is that, from the point of view of Luas being up and running, commissioned and transporting people, we are talking about at least 2005. We will not see passengers on board Luas traversing the streets and roads of Dublin until at least 2005 or possibly longer and all the while the light rail office continues to spend public moneys with expensive front page advertisements in national daily newspapers assuring the general public that Luas is literally around the corner.

What are the ads for?

(Mayo): I do not know. The Minister might address that.

I addressed it in a Dáil reply. It is not my business. The light rail office does its own advertising, I do not comment on it nor do I want to.

(Mayo): The Minister did not address it because—

There was a parliamentary question on it yesterday.

(Mayo): It was a question I tabled which was transferred. It was taken as being none of your business that it was the responsibility of the light rail office.

Yes, it is.

Deputy Higgins should address his remarks through the Chair and Deputy Stagg should refrain from interrupting.

(Mayo): Given that public money, voted by the Minister and by the Oireachtas is involved in presenting these glossy reassuring advertisements, she might find out for us what they cost and what is the purpose of them.

Can the Deputy not ask that himself?

(Mayo): We have asked it but we have not got any response. The Minister is the person who provides the money. She should not hide behind the role of that office's responsibility being separate from hers.

I never hid behind anything.

(Mayo): There are times when you are very excellent but times when you can be extremely petty.

I ask Deputy Higgins to address his remarks through the Chair.

(Mayo): The short-sighted approach of successive Administrations and the failure to appreciate the advantage of light rail transport is a major contributory factor to the present traffic chaos on our roads. Apart from the nightmare gridlock in every city and large town in the country, and even smaller towns are encountering their daily traffic queues because of the absence of an efficient public transport service, we have been left with a run down, dilapidated, unreliable train service.

I use the train as regularly as I can. On a Friday evening I take either the 5 p.m. or the 6 p.m. train from Heuston to Westport or Ballina. The Heuston to Westport to Ballina train is an experience the Minister should sample.

I was on it.

(Mayo): As far as Athlone. The Minister should travel the whole journey. It is grand as far as Athlone.

I have travelled on it to Ballina.

(Mayo): What did the Minister think of it?

I travelled on it last year with Joe Meagher.

What did the Minister think of it?

They have done a good deal of work on the track that his party when in Government did not do.

(Mayo): I must give the Minister credit for providing money for the track. I suspect the Minister must have travelled on a good day, when Iarnród Éireann knew she and Joe Meagher would be coming.

(Mayo): Is the Minister sure?

Perhaps it was a special train.

(Mayo): Was it a special train?

No, it was packed with people.

(Mayo): Did the Minister mix with the hoi polloi?

No, I did not. The Deputy may say many things about me, but not that I mix with the hoi polloi.

I remind the Minister and the Deputy that this is not Question Time.

The Minister is the exception to the rule.

It is a Second Stage debate. I ask Deputy Jim Higgins to address his remarks through the Chair.

(Mayo): I would wager that if the Minister and I travelled on the train to Mayo this evening, we would have the same experience as many commuters have had in the past two years. One can fly from Shannon to New York or Boston in five hours. In the past two years, furious commuters from Mayo have gone on Mid West Radio to recount their experiences during the 160-mile journey from Dublin to Westport, which takes five hours. Passengers are packed in like sardines. Up to 50 people, some of them elderly pensioners or people coming from hospitals in Dublin, have to stand in aisles or in spaces between carriages. On many occasions, no trolley service is offered. Those who wish to avail of dining car facilities cannot do so, as passengers have no option but to spill into the dining car when there are no seats available elsewhere.

One of the saddest sights in terms of railway infrastructure is to see the overgrown foundations of defunct railway lines that were closed 20 or 30 years ago. The Collooney to Claremorris line was closed 30 years ago, but thanks to the determination of the western rail action committee, headed by Fr. Micheál McGréil, it has remained intact, although in a state of decay and disrepair. If reopened, the line would link Sligo to Limerick and on to Waterford. It would mean reopening the section between Claremorris and Athenry, which would make perfect environmental and economic sense.

I recently asked the Minister what the capital cost of repairing the line would be. She told me that it would cost £100 million.

Does the Deputy refer to the whole line, as far as Waterford?

(Mayo): That is right. I recently rang Mr. Joe Beirne, the Mayo county engineer, to inquire as to the cost of the new seven miles of road between Knock and Claremorris. The total cost of the new road, which is currently under construction and which will bypass the two towns in question, is estimated to be £45 million. We should compare a cost of £45 million for seven miles of roadway to £100 million to rebuild 70 miles of rail track between Collooney and Athenry. Every morning, hundreds of workers from north, east and south Mayo commute to Galway or Sligo in private cars on roads which are increasingly choked with traffic. The commuters of Mayo would love to use a railway ser vice which would take them right into the heart of Sligo or Galway in 45 minutes.

I understand that studies have been officially commissioned into this line and a number of other lines. In the event of defunct lines being reopened, is it envisaged that they will come within the remit of the procurement agency which is being debated in the House and for which we are passing legislation? There is huge merit in reopening closed lines. A new railway line should be constructed between Dungarvan and Youghal to facilitate a link between the cities of Cork and Waterford. Similarly, serious consideration should be given to other lines as alternatives to road. A line between Dublin and Navan is under construction, but we should seriously consider an extension of that line to Monaghan, Cavan, Enniskillen and Bundoran. Rail transport is the way to go.

I welcome the concept of public private partnership, an area in which there is great potential. There is a reasonable prospect of a return on investment where there is a high population and a high turnover. Along with the obvious merits of social and commercial partnership, the reduction of the burden on the public purse by drawing private finance into major proposals is attractive. I do not see such partnership as a viable option in many parts of the country, such as in rural Ireland where profits cannot be guaranteed.

The issues of privatisation and ownership require a clear policy statement from the Government. I do not believe the privatisation of the rail system is an option.

I agree with the Deputy.

(Mayo): On our doorstep, in the United Kingdom, we have the finest example of a country where privatisation became the dogma and the sacred cow, but where it has been an absolute shambles. Safety has been compromised in the UK, where there are no trains, slow trains, high fares, chaotic timetables, accidents, deaths and major tragedies. It is a clear lesson for us. The idea was to provide competition to produce lower prices and to increase efficiency, but the net outcome has been a disaster. As we speak, private companies which entered the market with such zest and appetite are being bought out by the British Government.

In relation to this Bill, where is the demarcation between CIE and the new procurement agency? Where is the demarcation between the holding company and the new agency? I look with a certain amount of dissatisfaction and concern at the fact that all seven members of the board are to be appointed by the Minister. Why was it not possible to assess a number of agencies and organisations to find those who have a specialist interest in aspects of the rail industry, rather than giving the power to nominate people to the board entirely to the Minister for Public Enterprise? It should have been possible to look at different sectors to determine the people who should be allowed a key input and whose expertise would be of benefit. The entire discretion for the nomination of the board should not have been given to the Minister. Time and time again, unfortunately, cronyism has become the main qualification for appointments to State boards. The Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, is not the only Minister to have done this.

When did that happen?

(Mayo): Expertise and aptitude is more valuable than having been a fund raiser for a particular party.

When did cronyism begin, Deputy?

(Mayo): Settle down, Deputy.

Deputy Jim Higgins should be allowed to conclude without interruption.

Deputy O'Flynn should not raise the temperature, as he will get his chance.

(Mayo): I have almost concluded.

Deputy O'Flynn should not become excited.

(Mayo): Deputy O'Flynn has become the great protector of the Minister in committee, in the Dáil and outside the House.

I like him.

(Mayo): The Minister is very lucky to have him.

I like him very much.

(Mayo): He is a human flak jacket.

Deputy O'Flynn is expecting preferment.

I like him.

(Mayo): The Government's red book has two aspects, the first of which is management of infrastructure, with which we are currently dealing. The second part of the Government's plan deals with operations and safety and I hope we see a safety Bill shortly.

The main purpose of this Bill is the establishment of an independent and commercial statutory State body, the Railway Procurement Agency. I am worried that this House will have no power to question anything the agency does after it has been set up.

It is another NRA.

I remember a major row in this House many years ago when the health boards were being set up by the late Erskine Childers. The row developed mainly because Deputies felt we could no longer discuss health issues in here or ascertain what was happening as regards health. Members of this House are limited in what they can say and do about these bodies. More and more bodies are being set up, which is a worrying trend. It means that the Minster has less and less responsibility.

Does the Deputy think I have nothing to do?

Public moneys are involved. It worries me that the House is losing its authority, given to it by the people. Having said that, I am glad the Minister stated this morning that she is not in favour of privatising railway lines. It is good that her views are clear as I would be totally opposed to it.

She may change her mind.

She has done it often before.

The Minister for Finance managed to change the mind of the Minister for Public Enterprise regarding the ESB, so I am worried, but she may hold firm on this.

I live in the midlands and I am anxious about railway services from the midlands to Dublin. In the 1920s, there was a double rail track from Tullamore to Dublin. I am not sure if the double track extended to Athlone, but the Minister can check that for me. The double rail track stops in Portarlington, but the bridges are wide enough to accommodate such a track. I ask the Minister to do everything possible to ensure the Dublin to Portarlington double rail track is extended to Tullamore, Athlone and the west. This is most important and, as a representative of the midlands, I ask the Minister to place particular emphasis on the extension of the double rail track from Dublin to Tullamore and Athlone, which is near and dear to her. It is essential that this matter is addressed.

I understand many of the problems regarding additional train services and lines are related to Heuston Station. Most of the trains entering and exiting the station go under the one bridge and this limits the opportunity to expand lines. There is a need for approximately six additional lines into Heuston Station and I ask the Minister to consider the expansion and improvement of the station. This would allow rail services to be further developed and this matter should be addressed at the earliest possible date.

In the context of the double rail track, the Minister is aware that the Arrow service has been extended to Portlaoise. It is a limited service but it is up and running. Iarnród Éireann should extend the Arrow service to Tullamore and Athlone. The Minister is aware of the relatively good train service from Athlone to Dublin, but it is very limited in that there are no trains between 9.30 a.m. and around 1 p.m.

At 12:50 p.m.

There are no further trains until 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. The service is also limited on the return leg. A huge number of people would leave their cars at home if there was an expanded timetable. I ask the Minister to consider that important aspect because it would help reduce the number of people travelling by car.

When I first travelled to Leinster House in the 1970s, I could make the journey at a normal speed from Birr to Leinster House in two hours. I can now travel from Birr to Newlands Cross in 90 minutes but it could take up to a further two hours to reach Leinster House from there. The real blockage is from Newlands Cross to the centre. Iarnród Éireann and the railway procurement agency should consider developing huge car parks on the edge of Dublin and providing good light rail or bus services into the city centre. The delays people now experience entering and leaving the city are severe.

The midlands needs a double rail track, the extension of the Arrow service and a greater frequency of train services. There is also a need for trains to run later in the evenings to the midlands, for example, up to 9.30 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. I agree with the points raised by Deputy Jim Higgins. The wise men in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s who were in charge of CIE came, in the main, from the Minister's side of the House. When deputations about railway line closures met these men, they were laughed at and told to go home because the car was the way of the future and railways were no longer viable. Numerous railways lines were closed, but I welcome Deputy Higgins's proposal for a line linking Sligo, Limerick, Waterford, Athenry and Claremorris. This is the way forward. Irrespective of what the National Roads Authority does, there still will be major congestion on the roads. Railways lines are the way to proceed. This is immensely important and it should be progressed.

Every day we are told about the establishment of new bodies, but they cost a fortune to run. I have doubts about the need for many of them, but I will reluctantly agree to the establishment of this body on the firm understanding that it is not the first step towards the privatisation of our rail tracks. The people paid for the development of railway lines. The money invested in them was provided by the people and they own the railways. I do not want wealthy individuals to take over our railways lines because they belong to the people and should remain in public ownership.

In addressing this issue, we should remind ourselves why there is a need for public transport and consider what form it should take. We are discussing an effective and efficient means of moving large numbers of people from one place to another in the shortest possible time and in the most comfortable way. Various means have been devised to do this, including by rail, bus or air. Unfortunately, another mode of transport has been developed that is expensive and is a polluter, but it is the main mode of transport now for most people.

Public transport should be identified as an important means of connection in terms of people communicating with each other in rural and isolated areas. It enables them to get into towns and villages from rural areas. A bus service was introduced from Galway to Castlebar and it passed the house in which I was born and reared. This service changed the lives of all the people on the route. Many of them were old age pensioners because most of us were in Dublin, having moved there to get jobs. The pensioners had free travel passes, but they had been isolated because there was no transport. The bus service changed their lives. They were able to go to Castlebar, have a choice of shops and visit people in hospital. They could do all the things they wanted that they could not do previously. This ability to communicate with others is an important aspect of public transport and I welcome the developments in that direction under the Minister's remit.

It is now recognised that the private car is not capable of doing the job. Nevertheless, 100,000 new cars were bought in Dublin last year for use on roads that are full. The motorways in my constituency are full of cars. They can be driven at 80 mph, but effectively they are in a traffic jam because the cars are bumper to bumper. I was one of the people who bought a new car, but an increasing number of cars are being piled on to roads that are already full. There is no end to this or any possibility of serving people's needs by that mode of transport and I am glad we are now discussing developing rail services.

It is now fashionable for all parties to say they are in favour of public transport. We used to have a monopoly on the idea of public transport, but we did not receive public support to implement it. It was always left as a Cinderella or lame duck on the side. However, I am not wiping out our responsibilities. When we had a measure of power, we did not do enough about it. I welcome

all the new converts to public transport in the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party. As a result of their conversion, there is a real possibility that public transport will be developed because it is likely to have a large measure of public support. However, some people in both parties are half hearted about it and would prefer private public transport, whatever that would mean.

The foreword to the Irish Congress of Trade Union's response, called the Route to Success, to the Minister's red book states:

The quality and cost of public transport is a key factor underpinning participation in economic activity.

In that sense it facilitates social inclusion and by extension the establishment and maintenance of a just society. In Ireland the public transport system has suffered from persistent under investment resulting in an inability to keep pace with the rapid growth in demand for services. This under investment has perpetuated low pay and low morale with attendant industrial relations problems in the State operating companies.

In this context Congress welcomes the commitment in the national development plan to invest in public transport infrastructure. It is a matter of regret, however, that the Government has also apparently decided to fragment the public transport infrastructure by handing over significant elements of it to the private sector. It is the view of Congress that this approach has failed in other jurisdictions and that there will be a significant degree of public antipathy towards it.

Congress believes the Government's proposal as set out in its consultation paper, "A New Institutional and Regulatory Framework for Public Transport", is seriously flawed.

It is important to put the views of Congress on the record.

Did the Deputy read page 21?

I did, I almost know the document off by heart. It is an excellent document which provides a good response to the flaws in the other document. The other document is not all bad but it has flaws.

We are dealing with one aspect of the public transport issue in this legislation, namely rail transport. Deputy Higgins asked whether the Bill will deal with all new rail projects and the answer is "no".

The legislation will only deal with Luas, when we eventually see it, and Metro, if we ever see it, and I am glad that is the case. The original Bill when introduced in the Seanad was a very different animal to what is before us. It was the Minister's intention, despite her protestations to the opposite, to use this Bill as a stalking horse, the first phase of the privatisation of the rail system.

That is how it is done. Department officials are not ever up front. No officials in the Department of Public Enterprise would ever say to a Minister that a Bill is the first stage of privatisation but they have a clear agenda no matter which Minister is in the Department for the privatisation of all public enterprise. They bring forward measures to various Ministers which are seen as desirable and necessary in some aspects but are part of the jigsaw that the officials have created from the Secretary General down to ensure Ministers are conned into bringing forward measures into the House that will facilitate privatisation. They have a definite agenda in that regard and I speak from direct experience. They will work to that agenda and against any other agenda put forward. I compliment the Minister on accepting the advice from Congress to limit this legislation because there is no doubt the original intention was that it would be the first step in privatising rail transport.

The Minister's contribution on Second Stage in the Seanad related to a Bill that covered all new rail infrastructure. However, her last sentence was very instructive. It came out of the blue in the context of her contribution. She stated: "The Bill is concerned with the operation of Luas and the Metro, although I am more than willing to listen to the views of all Members who contributed, and it is not concerned with heavy rail". This was the last sentence in a contribution about railways generally and the application of the new agency to the railways. I compliment her on upstaging those with an agenda of privatisation. That sentence was not scripted by her officials but I am not attacking the Department or its officials. They have a job to do which generally they do well but they also develop agendas when they are in situ for a long time.

I read the entire Second Stage debate in the Seanad and I came across a gem of a contribution from Senator Caffrey. Having heard the final sentence of the Minister's contribution, he stated:

Why did the Minister not confer powers on the existing agency and board of CIE rather than set up another board with a new chief executive and all that entails in terms of money, responsibility and accountability? On reading the Bill, one would think that powers could be transferred to the existing machinery in CIE unless it is an attempt to give a new image to the light rail and metro systems. Perhaps it is an attempt to lay the Percy French ghost of the railway system to rest.

I am still suspicious of the Minister's intentions and I remain to be wholly convinced that we are not heading for privatisation but we will tease out the detail of the legislation on Committee Stage. Despite the experience across the water there is still a large school of thought in our political parties and Departments that favours selling Irish Rail and hiving it off to the highest bidder. I know how the Department of Public Enterprise works.

In that context the recent Labour Party conference restated its policy on privatisation and the following motion from my constituency was overwhelmingly carried and is binding on the parliamentary Labour Party:

Conference opposes the planned privatisation programme of the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat government which will lead to the privatisation of ESB, Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, Bord Gáis, An Post, CIÉ, Coillte, RTE and Bord na Móna.

Conference reaffirms Labour policy to retain the commercial public sector in public ownership, and it will legislate for the commercial freedom of the individual companies and for regulated competition in the areas where they operate. Labour will further insist that univer sal service obligation and postalisation of charges will be applicable to all services.

Conference urges the Labour Party not to agree to any Programme for Government with any other parties that does not include this policy.

I want to give credit where it is due. The Minister has achieved a level of funding for public transport and railways, in particular, that has not been seen since the foundation of the State. The funding achieved in the national development plan exceeds anything that has gone before.

Hear, hear.

However, I am far from pleased with the use of these public funds. I refer to Luas which is the subject of this agency, in particular. The Minister almost inquired Luas to death. When the inquiry results did not suit the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, and the Progressive Democrats the inquiries started all over again. At one stage the Minister proposed building the on street light rail system underground at the behest of the Progressive Democrats. Seemingly the party has an expert on tunnels but that will never happen. I recall the day the Minister announced the proposal in the House. I said there would never be a spoonful of that tunnel dug and the Minister for Finance burst out laughing. Not one grain of that tunnel should ever be dug nor will it be. Light rail systems must be built on street, not underground. Metro systems using trains that can pull big loads are built underground.

As a result of the Minister's inability to make a positive decision on Luas, the system has been reduced to a line from Tallaght to St. Stephen's Green and a temporary line to Sandyford. There would be none of the system left only for the Government deciding to leave a little of it so that the Minister could save face. There is no valid reason for Luas given what has happened. There will only be one line from Tallaght to St. Stephen's Green with no connection to the rail system and there will be a temporary line to Sandyford to satisfy the Government Chief Whip who campaigned for it be built until the Metro is in place.

We will have to wait 16 years for the metro, according to the Minister. If she had acted positively on the work done by her predecessors and given the back of her hand politically to the Tánaiste, the Luas would now be constructed and would carry thousands of passengers per day. However, all we get ad nauseam are photo opportunities of the Minister sitting in the Luas engine somewhere, although it is not going anywhere.

The Deputy is jealous.

I join my colleagues in expressing concern about the huge amounts of money being spent on a promotion campaign for Luas. I cannot understand what it is for. It is promoted in sections of newspapers and glossy magazines and there are nice photographs of the Minister. I do not object to the Minister getting her picture in the newspaper, but for what is the Government promoting Luas? As soon as it is built, it will be full because it is an attractive mode of transport. There is no need to spend this money. Perhaps the officials in the Department could find out why that is happening. I am sure the Minister and the Department are keeping a good eye on how the money is spent in CIE after what happened before.

Railway buffs and train watchers come to see us on a regular basis to talk to us about the merit of rail. They remind us that whatever else the British left when we drove them out of this country they left us a comprehensive rail network and electric trams on the streets of Dublin. What became of this vital link? Deputy Enright was right that Fianna Fáil and Todd Andrews closed the trams down, tore them up and sold them. The worst thing they did was to sell the land on which the track was laid which meant no one else could use it. I used to put pennies on the track in Roundfort in Mayo when I was young to make them as big as a half a crown, which my father used to get. He left them on the track for a full run. That track is now used by farmers for silage pits because there is good drainage from it. I know where the drainage ends up and I know why there are many weeds in the river in which I used to fish. It is dreadful that happened. The pendulum has now swung full circle because we must now replace that infrastructure. It would have been easier to upgrade it than to replace it. I am not blaming the Minister for that because it is history. It was a bad mistake that was made.

Everyone fell in love with cars and thought they were great.

They thought they would cure everything.

While the Bill deals with such matters as approved procedures for new rail infrastructure and on-street regulation of light rail, the main issue is the establishment of the rail procurement agency. This was intended to cover all rail systems, heavy, light, metro, etc., but it has now been reduced to Luas and the future metro. This is a massive vote of no confidence in the existing procurement authority, Irish Rail, by the Minister and the Government. Given that the proposal is limited, will the Minister accept the wise advice of Senator Caffrey and give the resources to Irish Rail to do this limited job compared to the original intention? I agree with Senator Caffrey who asked why another bureaucracy and a board full of Fianna Fáil hacks must be set up to do something which is already being done by a board full of Fianna Fáil hacks. Fianna Fáil hacks are there now because that is the system. If the Labour Party and Fine Gael were in power, they would be Labour and Fine Gael hacks. I acknowledge and accept that is a bad system which needs to be examined to see how it can be corrected. The value of this agency is doubtful.

As regards responsibility in the House, I am glad the Government, Fine Gael and the Labour Party are acting together through the Whips in relation to the proposed Dáil reforms. Part of the reforms will require the Minister to answer questions on the floor of the House for agencies under her control.

When did that come in?

It has not come in yet, but I hope it will come in soon. I will support that and many other reforms in the House. I hope all the parties support their Whips.

That is progressive.

There is no doubt that public private partnerships have certain values, but they also have downsides or negatives. Their development is just another name for privatisation. We are handing over lock, stock and barrel, huge chunks of public infrastructure for a limited investment. If the Minister is considering public private partnerships in the context of Luas or the metro, she must ensure that ownership and control of the utility is retained publicly even when there must be a return on investments. It is a device for giving a slice of action and of the profits to the private sector when there is no good reason to do that. If profits are taken out of these areas, the costs will be higher. Is there a need to take this route? We already employ private contractors to do the work. We do not have to ask them for their money as we pay them for doing the work. They do that on a competitive basis. We could employ contractors to run a business as well if we want to and we could do that on a competitive basis. We could employ contractors to run the Department if we wanted to and we could have tenders for doing so. That might work well. It might be a refreshing idea to apply some of the medicine to the doctor. It might do an enormous amount of good.

I told the officials they should not get upset.

As regards needing funds, if these areas offer valuable investments from the private sector point of view and a good solid return on them, why does the Government not invest the pension funds? There are colossal amounts of money available in the public and private pension funds. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, also has huge stacks of money as a result of surpluses in recent years. Why is that not invested in our infrastructure if it is possible to get a return on it? I know the private sector will not invest unless there is a return. Perhaps the Minister might speak to the Minister for Finance about the possibility of investing the pension funds, which are generated in Ireland, in major infrastructural projects here with a return in the form of shadow tolling, for example, rather than investing them abroad. A return would be necessary in the interests of pensioners.

The ICTU document is a response to the red book. The basis of the red book was that private ownership would be the format for public transport. In that context, I will quote again from the ICTU document under the heading, "The Future of Rail Transport". It states:

There can be little doubt from recent experience in Britain that the efficient and safe operation of railways is best secured through public ownership. The Government has, on a number of occasions, sought to assure unions that it has no intention of privatising the railways, but has argued that some reform is necessary, if only to allow the proposed investment proceed.

Unions recognise the need for reform and support the following proposals: the retention of Irish Rail in public ownership, with the operating and infrastructure side of the company consolidated under a single company structure; the creation of a railway procurement agency with a remit to procure an operator for the Luas, and ensure the development of the Metro in Dublin. The development of the Metro could involve the use of a PPP; and the creation of a rail safety agency.

That is very different from what the red book said. I assume the Minister would generally support what Congress is saying.

As regards that document, I hope we can go along much of the road they have outlined, yes.

When I read the red book I was very nervous that the main philosophy behind it was that privatisation was some sort of Mecca. When it was examined by the EU, in particular, it was found that it was no great answer to the problem. While one got a slightly cheaper service with deregulation, the quality and level of service was greatly reduced, as well. The Labour Party will support the Bill in so far as it contains safeguards against the future use of the agency to bring forward the privatisation of Irish Rail, the Luas or the Metro.

I am pleased to support this Bill as a Deputy who made transport a part of my personal manifesto at the 1997 election, long before most Deputies had identified it as an issue.

As the Minister will be aware, I have a strong record in asking parliamentary questions about public transport. As Cork Deputies will know, I have been the strongest advocate of improved public transport facilities in the Cork region. Recently, I made strong representations on behalf of the people of Cork in relation to the development of the prime site at Kent Station and Parnell Place.

He is Munster's minister for public transport.

We know. The Minister should watch out.

I thank the Minister. This resulted in a visit to Cork from the highest levels of CIÉ management to discuss the future development of rail infrastructure in the Cork region. I thank Dr. John Lynch, chairman of the company, for having accompanied his team to Cork. I speak, therefore, with some experience of and interest in the Bill.

The Bill is in five Parts. Part 2 is a substantial part dealing with the establishment of the railway procurement agency. Part 3 deals with conventional railway matters, and Part 4 with light railways or tramways. Part 5 contains a number of miscellaneous provisions.

I will set out my own vision of what railway transport infrastructure should be. We have a great railway engineering heritage, dating back to the renowned Irish railway engineer, Dargan. Even Brunel worked in Ireland and engineered substantial parts of what should soon become known as Metro na Laoi, namely the Cork to Cobh section of the Great Southern and Western Railway.

Deputies should be aware that railway engineering was a profitable private investment in the 19th century. The Great Southern and Western Railway regularly paid annual dividends of 6% in its early decades of operation. It was a bit like the Internet today. Railway engineering was always controlled by Acts of Parliament so what we are doing with this Bill is nothing new.

There are, unfortunately, a number of fundamental problems with the Irish railway infrastructure, of which everyone in the House should be aware. First, the population distribution was very different then from today.

It was far more uniform and rural. Some of the western counties had populations approaching that of Dublin. In addition, the relative importance of larger towns and cities was very different then. Belfast was the commercial hub of Ireland, similar in size to Dublin. Today, Dublin is three times the size of Belfast. Waterford was much larger than Galway in those days, and Galway even lost its corporation and mayor at one time, until Fianna Fáil restored them in 1941. Cork City was important as a sea port and agricultural market, its butter exchange having an importance at global market level. Cobh was the equivalent of Shannon Airport and Heathrow Airport in one, and most American mail for Britain came into Cobh and up the Great Southern and Western Railway.

The railway infrastructure was designed for the population distribution and economic priorities of Ireland in the second half of the 19th century. It was also designed for the military transport purposes of the British army in Ireland, if for no other reason than that it was a large source of regular income.

Second, there was no road competition when the railway was built, and most people were too poor to travel. It was, therefore, primarily designed for goods transport, with passenger transport as a secondary revenue earner on many railways.

Third, there was, and remains, a major problem with the railway gauges. Most people will be familiar with the concept of railway gauge, or track gauge, as the spacing between both rails, but few people are aware that our track gauge is different from that of any other country. There is however a second important gauge called the loading gauge. This is essentially defined by the clearance under the bridges and overhead wires and beside platforms.

Unfortunately, our loading gauge is also out of step with most countries. The reasons are as follows. Brunel, the English engineer, was pushing the idea of broad-gauge railways with a six-foot track gauge. He maintained this would give a better ride and allow larger rail vehicles. More or less everyone else in the railway world was building to a track gauge of 4 ft. 8.5 ins. or 1435 millimetres.

Why was this peculiar measurement so common, however? If I may, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will provide the House with part of the history involved.

It is very interesting.

The reason was that most carts happened to have their wheels spaced apart by that much. In fact, smaller and older cars have their wheels about 5 ft. apart. Carts had wheels 4 ft. 8.5 ins. apart and this measurement fitted nicely into the ruts made by traffic in the dirt roads of Europe over a period of 2,000 years. Everyone made carts that way. Believe it or not, all this dates back to the standard spacing between Roman chariot wheels. In Ireland, the Dublin to Dún Laoghaire railway was built with a track gauge of 4 ft. 8.5 ins., and so was the Dublin to Drogheda railway. The only problem was that the broad gauge supporters managed to influence the Ulster Railway which started building southwards at a 6 ft gauge. By the time they got to Portadown, the British Government stepped in with a royal commission which was responsible for the mess we have today. Instead of setting either the broad gauge or the standard gauge, the commission made up its own compromise gauge measuring 5 ft. 3 ins. Nobody else uses it and nobody makes railway carriages for it, except to special order.

In Europe, only two other geographic areas have this problem; Spain and Portugal are on a broader gauge of 1672 mm or about 5 ft. 5.75 ins. In addition, Basque Railways have a narrow gauge system. I do not know why this is, but it means that the entire railway system in the Iberian peninsula is isolated from France and the rest of Europe, apart from a few trains, which can have their wheel gauge changed at the Franco-Spanish border.

Russia and her former colonies, including the Baltic states and Finland, have a 1524 mm track gauge, 5 ft. They also have some international trains that are jacked up at the border to allow the wheels to be changed. This is no way to run a railway and Britain recognised that at a very early stage. Brunel had got control of the engineering for the main England to Wales railway, called the Great Western, which was built to a 6 ft. gauge. It was converted, towards the end of the 19th century – in a single weekend shutdown, using thousands of labourers – to the standard gauge of 1435 mm, which is the old English measurement of 4 ft. 8.5 ins.

The Spanish authorities took a radical decision about 15 years ago with the new high-speed train from Madrid to Sevilla, which was built at standard gauge. They are also building from Madrid up to the Basque country at standard gauge. It will eventually reach France with a standard gauge line so that they can have high-speed trains running through to the middle of Spain.

Should we consider converting some railways to the standard gauge? This is a cross-Border issue as all Ireland shares a unique railway track and loading gauge. We do not have international trains as we have no tunnel out of the country, but the issue is one of how easily we can acquire extra spare rolling stock.

I commend the Minister for ensuring that the Luas tram system is already being built to standard gauge, not Irish gauge. This will make it easier to buy extra tram sets quickly. This is an important issue. My constituents have to stand on old crowded trains, especially going to Kerry and Mallow. Unlike many of its European counterparts, Iarnród Éireann cannot purchase good serviceable second-hand carriages to use as spare capacity on holiday weekends and other busy periods. It has to wait for new carriages to be specially built.

The second related issue is the loading gauge. We have the same small, penny-pinching, Mickey Mouse loading gauge as Britain. Anyone who has been to the Continent will have seen real trains, capable of being built as double-deckers for commuter use without extending platforms and able to carry cars and loaded lorries. This gauge is also an obstacle to the importation and use of high quality second-hand rolling stock from Europe as a quick solution to our rolling stock shortage. Britain is the only place from where we can import rolling stock which fits our loading gauge. Most of this stock comes from the specialist second-hand railway supplier, Vic Berry. Some carriages in the fleet came from this source and had to be re-wheeled.

We need to consider the modification of selected railways to fit the UIC loading gauge used on the Continent. In terms of the ability to carry freight easily, this is a bigger issue than the track gauge. Such investment would also allow double-deck trains to be used in urban areas, without the need for costly platform extensions for longer trains. The Minister should consider this issue for the longer term.

I wish to address the issue of private investment in the railway infrastructure. Railway privatisation as it was implemented in Britain has proven to be a disaster. However, the German model is working well. What is the difference? In Britain, a franchising arrangement was established for train service providers to come in and take over the operation, as a monopoly, of sections of the railway service. In Germany, Deutsche Bahn stock was issued in an IPO so institutional investors came in and the system did not become an open target for get-rich-quick merchants looking for a licence to print money. Most of the independent private operators in Germany run rail cars on small provincial lines that Deutsche Bahn has stopped serving. In general, they do not operate in the large population centres. Some German local authorities also run rail services.

If we privatise the rail service here, and I do not see it as a priority compared to the bus service, it should be done through the retention of a single large company whereby smaller operators would be allowed to operate additional services. Tickets must be interchangeable and on a single fare tariff and structure based on distance travelled. Train operators in Ireland should not be allowed to impose profiteering charges as in Britain. The charge of £20 sterling, or IR£25, for a return train ticket for a 15-minute journey from London Heathrow to Paddington constitutes profiteering to the extent of being the heftiest airport tax in Europe. There should be a unified timetable and fare structure for the entire country. The best model for private sector investment in the railways is the public-private partnership which has the advantage of not disrupting the system.

I see no reason the State should not continue to invest in, and own, substantial profitable parts of the rail network. The WTO and the OECD have no business dictating to sovereign European Governments how much tax revenues they can invest in infrastructure. Likewise, the EU cannot put limits on state investment in transport, as it has done with air transport, while calling for an EU tax for military spending.

The approach outlined in the national development plan is correct as it strikes the right balance. The national development plan is recognised by the people as the crowning achievement of Fianna Fáil in government. I commend and congratulate the Minister for her Trojan work on investment in rail and bus services since she took office. I thank her for the investment in bus services in Cork city and county.

As a Cork Deputy, I find it frustrating that the only InterCity service from Cork goes to Dublin, with a connection to Limerick. Fifty years ago we had a direct train service to Belfast and a rail connection to Galway and Waterford. It is time the Ennis to Athenry section via Gort was upgraded and re-opened for passenger traffic to enable rail travel from Munster to Galway city. There should be three trains each way per day between Cork and Waterford, via Limerick Junction, to Limerick, Ennis and Galway. That would be a real intercity service.

Branding is an important part of any modern business. We do not have proper train classifications. The idea that all trains outside the Dublin suburban system and the Cork-Cobh line are InterCity is nonsense and almost constitutes false advertising. The German rail service has the best system of train classification in the world which sells each type of train as a product. The classifications are even run by different departments in the company. The train classifications we should borrow from Germany are eurocity for selected Cork-Dublin-Belfast express trains, intercity for express trains serving the major cities, interregional for slower trains on the main lines and trains on lines to smaller towns and regional train for rural branch trains and short distance trains from cities.

The fare structure should be reformed so a single ticket does not cost almost as much as a return ticket. There should be a basic fare with supplements charged to make up the full fare, but only payable on the genuine intercity and eurocity expresses. We should keep the Arrow, Luas and DART brands for suburban trains.

I welcome the fact that the Minister and Iarnród Éireann are considering the provision of through trains across Dublin by way of a tunnel. They should also consider the possibility of a new central station in Dublin at some point in the future.

I welcome Iarnród Éireann's decision to support the development of the suburban rail network for the Cork area, a service for which I have been calling since before my election to the Dáil. I suggest "Metro na Laoi" as a brand name for this new service. This system will probably become an extension of the Cobh service beyond Kent Station to serve the Kilbarry Technology Park, and then Blarney, possibly Rathduff, and certainly Mallow. It will then extend along the re-opened east Cork line to Carrigtwohill and Midleton. There is no reason it should not go all the way to Castlemartyr, Killeagh and Youghal which has become a major commuter town for Cork city. There is also a need for a station at Dunkettle providing bus links to Glanmire-Riverstown and the Ringaskiddy industrial area.

The Minister should consider the idea of extending the rail network to Cork Airport, via Ballincollig, with the intention of providing rail access to Carrigaline and Ringaskiddy. These areas are in my neighbouring constituency of Cork South Central, but rail access in the Cork area is a matter of importance for the entire city. It is about access to jobs and reducing traffic in the city. I do not take a narrow-minded view of my constituency and have always said I would stand up for all of Cork.

The hub of the railway infrastructure in the Cork region is Kent Station. At present, this station is configured for through rail traffic only and access to it by road is inconvenient. I support a complete re-development plan for Kent Station and the plan to move the suburban section of the station closer to the city. Kent Station also needs to become a bus terminus for several city bus routes. The station is not currently served by public transport, except for one or two special buses. CIE supports such a proposal.

We also need to consider a light rail network for Cork. At least one line, as part of Metro na Laoi, should run along the quay to the Opera House, the university area, Cork University Hospital and Cork Institute of Technology. Such a service would dramatically reduce car traffic in this congested area.

Cork has a high density of population, and a second light rail line, or perhaps two branches, are needed for the major north-east and north-west suburbs. Trams can run on steep gradients and do so in many hilly European cities such as Prague. Cork had a tram service in the past.

Germany has introduced tilting high speed trains – the ICE class 3 – which can run on the type of lines we have in Ireland with steep curves. We need to consider if such rolling stock could provide a high speed Cork-Limerick-Dublin-Belfast-Derry service, and also perhaps serve Galway.

We need a long-term plan for the rail system for the next 50 years. It may be better to start from scratch and build a new high speed line from Dublin to Cork via the more densely populated areas of Kildare, Carlow, Kilkenny city, Clonmel and Fermoy. Deputy McGuinness will speak about Kilkenny during this debate. The cost of such a service would be high, but as a wealthy country we need to start planning this type of investment project. Likewise, other parts of the country need to be linked by high quality, regular train services which would substantially reduce the number of road deaths. Our rail network has existed for 150 years and it is only proper that we should plan 50 years ahead.

The operation of the Northern Ireland network, or what is left of it after Stormont vandalised it, as a separate entity does not make any sense with the exception of the commuter rail system in the Belfast area. In the context of a united Ireland, or perhaps even sooner, we will have to face up to the restoration of the railway to the north-west. The closure of the Derry road line from Portadown to Derry, via Omagh and Strabane, deprived the whole country of a key part of its railway infrastructure. The northern half of the country is poorly served by railways and this impacts on people in Munster and elsewhere who want to travel to the north or midlands.

This is an area ripe for cross-Border co-operation. Although the relevant Minister in the North is from a party which is not well disposed to cross-Border bodies, I hope he will see the sense and benefit of such co-operation. Perhaps the Minister will raise these issues in the cross-Border body on transport.

I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill and hope it marks the start of the regeneration of our railway infrastructure.

The Deputy's contribution was very interesting.

Its historical insights were very useful.

The Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2001, highlights a very important crossroads in regard to investment in our rail network. It provides an opportunity to examine some of the current flaws in the system and to identify development potential. Hopefully, public-private partnerships will result in additional investment in the rail network. It will ensure proper rail infrastructure throughout the country, not merely on the eastern seaboard.

We need to radically overhaul our thinking in regard to investing in and delivering key infrastructural investment. Ireland's infrastructure is bursting at the seams. Our road network is unable to cope with the daily demands levelled on it and our rail infrastructure is under-utilised. The long-term outlook for the development and expansion of our rail network is extremely limited. The establishment of the proposed agency will, hopefully, result in a revised view of the rail network's potential.

The national development plan and the introduction of public-private partnerships resulted in the production of this legislation. Yesterday, in reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister stated that there will be 80 new carriages on the network by the middle of 2002. These carriages are to be divided between suburban and mainline services; some will be used to provide new services and some will replace existing stock. Will the Minister outline precisely how many carriages will be provided for severely overcrowded mainline services and for suburban services which require further investment? How many will be used for the provision of new services as opposed to replace existing stock? My colleague, Deputy Higgins, stated yesterday that the current overcrowding on our rail services resembles the Calcutta express and I endorse that view. Buses are subject to maximum load requirements but there is no such requirement on trains.

I hope the new agency does not represent the first step in a Government policy to privatise our rail network. We should not make the same mistake as that made by the UK Conservative Party Government in 1996. The decision to privatise the UK network has resulted in the disintegration of basic infrastructure and the loss of public confidence in rail transport, due in the main to a disastrous safety record. This lack of confidence was copperfastened by the announcement on 7 October last that Railtrack, the owner of the rail network, was going bankrupt. The British Government now finds itself in a position where it must re-nationalise the network to protect rail infrastructure.

Many parts of the network urgently require investment. These areas of the network are currently closed but, if developed and reopened, would help to stimulate investment in regions such as the west. Economic considerations would prohibit this happening if the network were privatised. Public-private partnerships will work in highly populated areas but will not work in areas where population numbers does not guarantee a return on investment. The money saved by the State through public-private partnerships in regard to Luas and suburban rail should be used to redevelop and reopen some of the dilapidated rail infrastructure and open new lines.

I hope the new agency will not only consider the financial viability of new infrastructure but will also examine the potential for economic development which would result from its provision. If the agency adopts the same view as its counterparts in Bord Gáis, the underdeveloped regions of the country will become poorer as other areas become congested. The Bill appears to have been drafted for the sole purpose of developing the Dublin light rail project—

And the metro.

Will the agency have a role in the development of new rail infrastructure outside Dublin? The key to the success of this agency will be whether it can expand and develop infrastructure. The Bill contains numerous references to "new rail infrastructure". What about the closed and under-utilised lines in the existing network? Will the agency invest in these lines such as that between Athlone and Mullingar? The current road network between Athlone and Mullingar used by thousands of commuters on a daily basis is deplorable. Will the agency have a role to play in the development of a commuter service to Galway city or similar services on the four lines serving Athlone?

The western rail corridor, on which the Minister has received numerous submissions, could be used as a passenger or freight route from Ballina to Limerick and onward to the south-east and Rosslare. This route could prove valuable in linking towns in the western region, thereby enhancing their development. It would also facilitate the development of tourism along the route, diversifying tourism growth to more inland regions. Several sections of the rail track, including the Collooney-Claremorris, Claremorris-Athenry and Athenry-Ennis sections, would have to be substantially upgraded to carry passenger and freight traffic. It is estimated that the upgrading of the western rail corridor from Collooney to Ennis to allow for speeds of 60 to 70 miles per hour would cost in the region of £100 million. This includes the cost of ancillary works. It corresponds to less that 1% of the total transport initiative for Dublin. The western rail corridor could also be linked to the development of commuter routes between the centres in the region such as Sligo and Galway. It would also serve Knock Airport, making it the first airport in the country to have a rail connection. This would help develop the airport and remove the severe congestion at Dublin Airport.

As there is no capacity for new services entering Dublin, to develop services from the western region to the capital will require investment at Heuston Station. There is a business case for an additional daily service between Galway and Dublin. However, until new rolling stock becomes available and additional capacity becomes available at Heuston Station, consideration of additional routes cannot proceed. Where stands the redevelopment of the service between Heuston and Connolly Stations? There is an existing rail line between the stations running through Phoenix Park. Opening that would immediately make additional capacity available by routing some services to Connolly Station.

Every day we travel on congested roads and see container after container travelling to and from the ports. This leads to huge frustration for motorists and long delays for exporters, which brings with it associated additional costs. Yet our rail network remains virtually unused for 12 hours each day. Ballina serves as a freight terminal for Castlebar and the Ballina region. There are two freight trains from Ballina to Dublin. Freight traffic also travels between Athenry and Ennis on a seasonal basis, averaging three trains per week. As far as possible, freight should be transferred from road to rail by discriminating positively in favour of it by making it commercially attractive and ensuring the reliability of such a service. What role will this agency have in the development of that policy?

Over the summer months tremendous work has been ongoing on the upgrading of the existing line between Athlone and Castlebar. The Minister and Irish Rail are to be congratulated on that. It was probably the most dangerous rail line in the country when the Minister took office. It is beyond comprehension how there were not major fatalities on that line. Thankfully that did not happen. Questions have been raised by a number of people about the erection of new fences and the removal of hedges and banks along the line. Was there a need to carry out that extensive work? Did that work break the law? Hedges are not supposed to be disturbed between the April and September. Under legislation, a land owner or local authority can be prosecuted for undertaking such work, yet Irish Rail seemed to be given the go-ahead.

One of the main purposes of the Bill is to allow private sector participation in the construction, operation and maintenance of new railways. We have seen in the United Kingdom that maintenance did not take place on the rail network under the stewardship of Railtrack. That was part of the problem which caused a drop in public confidence there. It also caused a number of fatal accidents on that network. It is important that we ensure that we do not make the same mistakes. We must ensure that proper maintenance takes place on our rail network. We are in the fortunate position that before any private maintenance contracts are awarded, our rail network is at an acceptable standard. That was not the case in the United Kingdom where major investment was required following the network's privatisation.

How will the Railway Procurement Agency be responsible to this House and to the Minister? More often than not we get the same response from the Minister that she has no responsibility to the House for the many semi-State companies under her control. The same can be said of the NRA which is under the control of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. It focuses attention on the point which Deputy Jim Higgins raised earlier regarding Luas. There are very glossy advertisements in all the national papers but the Luas line will not be operational until 2005. These advertisements are a waste of public money. No one has been told how much money is involved or why that advertising campaign is taking place at this stage. Even though that organisation is squandering public money provided by a Vote of this House, we cannot get answers. Is the same thing going to happen with the Railway Procurement Agency? In six or 12 months time when I table a question to the then Minister for Public Enterprise, will I be told that the Minister is not answerable to the House?

The body is answerable to the House through the Oireachtas committee. That is in the Bill.

I accept that. The point is that we will be extremely lucky if we get that agency before the committee once a year. Issues will surface from time to time. There should be a mechanism available to Members to question the agency and get responses as to how they are spending their money and what their plans are.

Will the Minister elaborate on some of the functions of this agency? One of the functions is to acquire and facilitate the development of land adjacent to railway infrastructure where such development could contribute to its economic viability. That is a positive development and something which is welcome. How is this property to be acquired? Will it be acquired through compulsory purchase orders? The Minister knows that compulsory purchase orders are not very popular in either her constituency or mine. Will recognition be given regarding CPOs to the potential of that property or will it be got at a knock-down price through CPO with huge potential for the Railway Procurement Agency to realise profits at the expense of the former owner?

The Bill will also confer additional functions on the agency in the area of public transport by rail or road. Does the Minister see this new agency as having a function in taking over some of the functions currently carried out by the Department of the Environment and Local Government? Yesterday the Minster said there was a need for an overall department of transport and I agree with her. It should not be split between two Departments and there should be some co-ordination between the various Departments. Does the Minister see the Railway Procurement Agency expanding its role and having a role in ensuring that co-ordination takes place?

Section 71 of the Bill will remove the need for a common membership of the boards of Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann. At present a minimum number of members must be common to both boards. Section 71 of the Bill will remove this requirement. How can we ensure Bus Éireann and Irish Rail will take a proper co-ordinated approach if membership of both boards is not co-ordinated? This is important because in the past, unfortunately, various Departments and organisations have worn blinkers. They have focused on their own areas and neglected co-ordination on housing, roads, rail and bus services. All the authorities involved in either housing or transportation need to take a co-ordinated approach.

The membership of the board, a matter briefly touched on by Deputy Jim Higgins, is another important issue. It is vital criteria are set down governing membership of the board, regardless of whether it is appointed by the Minister or a nominated body. It is important that it is not made up of people with a party membership card. They must have expertise and be able to augment the abilities of the board, thus ensuring the new authority has real powers, a proper outlook and a proper development plan as opposed to constantly hauling in consultants before rubber-stamping its reports. I do not mind if members are members of a political party provided they are able and competent. I hope that transpires with this agency. It would mark a first in the history of the State.

The Deputy is obviously not aware of the members of the board. It contains people with experience, including professors of engineering and law, who have been selected because of their experience.

Is the Minister referring to the new agency?

I am referring to the interim board.

I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister on her work to date in her Department. There is no doubt the Department covers a huge amount of activity and has a heavy workload. There are major changes taking place in the economy and demands for better services and reform to meet the needs of economic growth. It is a challenge for any Minister to respond to all of these in a constructive manner. The Minister is coping quite well and has introduced some very imaginative legislation to deal with some of the issues that have arisen.

I have listened to the speakers in the debate so far. My friend and colleague, Deputy O'Flynn, made an excellent contribution. I almost feel inadequate following in his footsteps given the history lesson and statistics he gave us and the vision he spelt out for the rail service. He was standing behind the Minister. I advise her to keep an eye on him.

I concur with the Minister's statement in her opening remarks that we are in a changing environment in a changing economy. The Department faces challenging demands to make appropriate changes in response to economic development. In the context of creating proper road and rail infrastructure, this Bill is a step in the right direction. The Minister also outlined the national development plan and pointed out that investment in the period 2000-06 is designed to achieve a radical transformation in the public transport system. The spend on transport outlined by her is concentrated in Dublin. We all recognise that the main urban centres, notably Dublin and Cork, deserve the kind of investment required to take the car off the street, provide a better public service and reduce the traffic jams we experience on a daily basis.

Having dealt with those specific problems there is a need, in the context of this Bill, to reflect on what is required throughout the country. A selection of services is needed. We must also consider passenger and freight services. There was a time when CIE, as it was then, dealt with freight services in a much more constructive and competitive way. Much of that service has now fallen to one side. The emphasis now is on the passenger service, rightly so. A state-of-the-art service is needed throughout the country to ensure every part of rural Ireland is connected in some shape or form to a public transport system. This is simply not happening. Some rural areas are not accessible by public transport. As a result, they do not enjoy the benefits of economic growth and are unable to participate, even on a social level, in local community or regional activities. This issue needs to be addressed in a modern country.

There is a huge problem with the disability sector and existing transport services. Disabled people are not able to fully access the public transport service, be it bus or rail. Disabled people living in rural areas face a huge battle to get to an urban centre or even to a hospital to access health services. We can no longer stand over this. We need to introduce legislation to force the service providers to ensure their services do not just serve the profitable urban centres, but also provide services to rural areas and give access to rural communities. It must be strongly emphasised to providers that they need to change their focus in the area of disabilities, which is not being addressed.

There is now an organisation called DISC in my constituency, which addresses the whole issue of public transport. One of the key points on its agenda is the fact that hospital services in the region cannot be accessed by public transport or taxi. That is not good enough. We have to set down in legislation or make it a goal of Government that people with disabilities have easy access to public and other services using public transport. We must strive towards this aim.

The Bill comes before the House at a time when transport in general is being debated in many constituencies. Another organisation called CAST, Campaign for Sensible Transport, has been established. It has been asking politicians to focus on the need to develop an integrated approach to our transport problems. The Minister was asked if the new agency would be able to extend its remit to take into account road, rail and bus route developments. There should be a Government or Civil Service co-ordinating body charged with ensuring every aspect of transport is deliberated on and delivered in a comprehensive package rather than by piecemeal investment. To get value for money, one needs to examine the overall picture in terms of service delivery and the planning mechanisms in place in Government to ensure road, rail and bus services are delivered in a total package. We would then know what is required in each area.

Many local authorities are debating the spatial strategy, growth centres and how they will cope with new growth in their areas. They will not be able to cope with growth in a constructive way without an integrated approach to transport. If we had an overall plan or a single body dealing with public transport, issues such as the Piltown-Fiddown bypass in my constituency, the N8 or the N9 would not arise.

We might not need that extent of road development impinging on rural Ireland and on our local agricultural communities if the rail network was developed in tandem with the development of the road network and proper bus routes. A substantial amount of traffic could be taken off the roads if we had the type of commuter system that is being demanded by the general public, by the route users.

I cannot travel to the Dáil by train or bus because the timetable does not facilitate that public transport need. There is no commuter service for Kilkenny with a population of 80,000 to 90,000 people. Many people commute to Dublin from the city and county of Kilkenny. I meet them on the road and I see them driving home from Dublin. Yet there is a train service subscribed to by a huge number of people – the carriages are always full. The company which runs the train service does not propose to extend it to ensure a daily commuter service from the growth centre of Kilkenny to Dublin.

At a European Affairs committee meeting two years ago, an official from CIE or Iarnród Éireann told the committee that the reason the commuter service from Kilkenny was being delayed was that the receiving station at the other end did not have the infrastructure to take extra services. That is nothing short of a disgrace in a growing economy. If the company is interested in developing its structures and business, it should reinvest adequately in its services. This has nothing to do with Government; the management is in control of the services, it has access to Government. Even though the Opposition nods its head or stands up and gives out about this and constantly tries to blame our Minister, throughout the history of CIE nothing has been done to adequately develop it in a truly commercial sense and give the public a better service. Unless the company is forced to acknowledge that it needs to develop and to deliver the services, we will be talking about this in ten years' time.

Deputy O'Flynn raised an interesting point – a similar point was made by the official who appeared before the European Affairs committee – about investment in the rail structure causing a problem because the gauge of the railway line is not compatible with European standards. As a result, the carriages and rolling stock must be built specifically for the Irish line.

I encourage the Minister to draw up a plan to be executed in the next five to ten years which would address the services as we know them at present and then ensure we transfer the gauge from the present measurement to the European standard. We could then readily access the carriages we need. That is a fundamental issue which needs to be addressed and funded. If that is done, it will open up the possibility of extending the rail line and allow immediate access for everyone, regardless of disability.

It is a disgrace that Kilkenny does not have a commuter service. If people wish to travel from Tralee to Kilkenny, they must first go to Kildare to change trains and there may be another change at Mallow before finally reaching Tralee. I cannot understand why that has not changed. I appreciate that the railway line involved was built at a time when the economy and population structure was different, but that railway line has been the same for as long as I can remember. I wonder why the investment was not made or the structure changed to reflect the changes in population structure and the demands of the general public.

There is now public pressure and demand because people want these services; they want to protect the environment and the way to do it is by using the railways. There is huge public support throughout Europe for public transport systems but we have fallen behind in terms of development. We are coming up to scratch in terms of the main centres such as Cork, Limerick and Dublin, but there is an immediate need to address the regions.

In the context of this Bill and this agency, will the Minister examine the deficiencies in the regions? We have an entitlement to participate in the economic upturn that still exists. People are willing to commute to work; they are willing to accept new concepts of work with some people preferring to work at home. There has been a shift in work patterns and we are not responding to it quickly enough. I ask that this agency be given a remit in the area of bus routes and that it links in with a co-ordinating body within Government to deal with the issue of roads and their linkage to the rail and public transport initiatives.

The cost structure must be examined in terms of what passengers are paying for their tickets and the service. A greater competitive edge would encourage different packages and ticketing structures to enable people to travel and commute on a daily basis. It could introduce weekend and family group travel. The rail service could be marketed to encourage families and individuals to use the service as an alternative means of transport. It is a growing area but it is not growing fast enough because the time schedules do not meet the needs of people and the scale of charges is not attractive to the pockets of people who use the services.

Rail safety is an issue and I link that with Government and public-private partnerships. The spend on the railways will be colossal in the next five to ten years. The joint approach of improving and extending the track and services to urban centres should be linked to the spatial strategy which is currently being debated at local authority level. Some package must be put together in an imaginative way which will give value for money for Government spending. It must be attractive to those financial institutions who will contribute by way of public-private partnership.

I agree with previous speakers that there needs to be some way for the House to question the direction of this agency or any other agency by way of parliamentary question or by way of questions to the Minister. Replies to parliamentary questions frequently state that the work of such agencies is not within the remit of the Minister. Running the country is the remit of the Government and it is responsible to the people. There should be some form of access to enable us to gain information from the Department through the Minister. While companies can be brought before committees of the House, that committee structure is limited. As we know, committees have been brought before the High Court and made to jump over all kinds of obstacles. It is up to this House to change that structure to ensure that we, as public representatives, can get information directly from the Minister.

I welcome the fact that we are dealing with Luas, light rail and the general rail infrastructure. I hope the comments made in this debate will be relayed back to the company concerned, that those involved can learn from it and that some attractive packages will be put in place to invest in the infrastructure to improve rail and bus services.

I wish to share time with Deputy Timmins, with the agreement of the House.

Acting Chairman:

No, the normal practice is for 20 minutes on each side of the House.

I compliment Deputy McGuinness on his excellent speech which, as usual, was well researched and thought out, although I might take issue on one or two points.

In relation to this Bill and public transport generally, we need an almost total change of mind-set. In the past seven or eight years, we have gone through a period of unprecedented economic growth which has led to considerable stresses and strains in our economy. One of the most evident features is the growth in car numbers and road transport. Never before was there a greater need to develop our public transport network. With the predicted downturn in the economy and the reported disappearance of the budget surplus in the coming years, perhaps we have missed the boat. This Government will be judged on how it spent the money which it inherited in the good times. It is quite evident that the Government did not invest in the rail network, in a visible way, as distinct from the work which I know has been done on the important safety aspects.

Like Deputy McGuinness, I have had the experience of putting down parliamentary questions and being informed that the Minister had no responsibility for the matter and that I should talk to some other body, only to be told by that body that it does not have to tell me anything. I am concerned about setting up yet another agency and, perhaps, when I ask a question about its work, being informed that the Minister has no responsibility for it. We are in danger of voting ourselves out of the role which we are supposed to fulfil on behalf of the people. People are becoming very annoyed, when they go to their public representatives for information on some issue and find that they cannot get it. I suggest that the Minister consider an amendment to the Bill to put a statutory obligation making the agency answerable to this House through parliamentary questions, if that is what it takes to make this and other agencies answerable. Deputies should be in a position to ask questions and get factual, truthful and timely replies. When we write to these agencies, we may have to wait for weeks or months for a reply – perhaps an unsatisfactory reply. If we pride ourselves as a democracy, this must be sorted out. These agencies are funded by the State and they should be answerable to this House by way of parliamentary question. It is not good enough that they come before committees occasionally and present a bland report, as some of them do and we do not really have time, on a once yearly basis, to go into sufficient detail.

Other speakers have asked if we need this agency at all. We run the risk of smothering the country in bureaucracy, paper and red tape. In the health services, we have more administrators than medical staff. In local authorities, people cannot make decisions; they pass the paper up the line and back down again. The buck has to stop somewhere. An agency like this runs the risk of being another paper swapping exercise. I ask the Minister to have another look at what restructuring can be done in CIE and Iarnród Éireann to have an internal agency answerable to the Minister and to this House, rather than setting up a whole new agency, with a whole new administrative structure, board of directors and chief executive. Is that absolutely necessary, or is there another agenda involved? Is it the intention that this agency will eventually take over certain roles and, perhaps, be privatised? Who knows? I will raise these questions again on Committee Stage and we will have to consider whether to support this Bill or oppose it.

I asked questions in the Dáil yesterday about the additional carrying capacity which the Minister intends to provide on mainline rail. Iarnród Éireann has often been criticised in this House but the staff and management are doing the best they can with very limited resources. Many of the rail carriages are 30 years old and the newer ones, I understand, are 17 years old. They are totally out of date and worn out. The Minister said there are carriages on the way, but it appears they are not actually main line carriages but DMUs. I understand there is a provision in the national development plan for the purchase of 20 new main line carriages. Is it true that this proposal has been shelved? I also asked about the time scale and did not get a reply – the point was evaded. Will the Minister do me the courtesy of answering my question, perhaps by letter, as to when these 20 carriages will be on stream? Have they been ordered yet? That is what I asked and I did not get an answer. It is no wonder people are annoyed.

Some months ago, I travelled by train from Dublin to Cork at 12 noon. We found ourselves in a DART carriage, because of a shortage of carriages for mainline rail. Those who are familiar with DART carriages will know that one cannot move from one carriage to another. On this occasion, the carriage was full, including older people and parents with small children. During the three hour journey, it was not possible to get a cup of tea, a sandwich or even a drink of water. I do not blame the people in Iarnród Éireann for this – it is not their fault and they are doing their best. The only toilet in that carriage broke down and could not be repaired and, as I said, people could not move from one carriage to another. One would not find such a situation in the Third World. It is ridiculous and the Minister still cannot tell me when the 20 mainline carriages will be made available, if ever.

Why is it not possible, for instance, to buy one's ticket on-line? Is that happening? I hope it is. What about integrated ticketing? We keep asking about it but it still has not come on board. Why does one have to queue at train stations for tickets? Parking at Cork station is a huge problem. Many people arrive at the station, cannot park their cars and have to drive to Dublin. The staff are doing the best they can but the money is not coming through from Government to facilitate the work that is needed. The decisions are not being made at that level. Why do we not have machines at railway stations from which one could purchase one's ticket? Why does one have to queue up all the time? In regard to ticket structuring, if one wants to buy an annual ticket, one has to wait until January. One cannot buy one in July, August or September because it only goes from January to January. Why is that? Surely, we can do better than that.

We need to co-ordinate buses and trains much more so that when people get off the train, there is a bus waiting to take them where they want to go. For instance, if one gets off the train in Dublin, one very often has to wait in the rain for a bus. If one wants to travel from the centre of the city to the station, one has to traipse down to O'Connell Bridge to get a bus. That is not on. It is not good enough in this day and age. Perhaps they do not want people on the trains because they do not have the capacity. Others made the point that we need to integrate transport, and that is true. Perhaps we need a Minister in charge of transport who would co-ordinate all transport in the State, including road, rail, air and sea transport, so that somebody has an eye on them all. That is very important and is needed.

Park and ride was mentioned by many speakers. It is virtually non-existent. If we are serious about easing the traffic gridlock, we will have to provide park and ride which must be linked up with buses and trains. That is vitally important.

For quite some time, I have advocated a local issue, opening the rail link to east Cork, to Midleton. Again, I will be parochial. I raised this issue when elected to the House in 1997. A feasibility study was commissioned by Iarnród Éireann, costing £25,000. It looked favourably on the proposal. Four and a half years later, it has decided to commission another feasibility study to look at all aspects of it, the technical, commercial and economic aspects and so on. How much will that cost? I asked that question in the Dáil yesterday but was not told. We have had feasibility study after feasibility study but nothing has happened on the ground. We need action where rail is concerned. I would like to see these new rail carriages ordered and in place as soon as possible. We have been told they will take two or three years to come on stream from the date of order. The information I have – I would like to be corrected – is that these 20 new mainline carriages have not been ordered. Why is that the case?

I have grave doubts about setting up another agency. We need to examine the matter carefully to see if there is another way to do this. I do not see any merit in setting up another layer of bureaucracy if we can avoid it. We should be trying to trim the bureaucracy that is there. We wait in hope for action on the railways and for major investment which will be seen on the ground. A lot of work has been done in Dublin on the railway stations but parking in many areas is a huge problem. The railways have to be comfortable, convenient to use, economic and, above all, safe. I know a lot of work has been done on safety, which is the priority, but comfort, convenience and value for money leave a lot to be desired.

Two weeks ago I travelled to Dublin from Cork. The train broke down outside Mallow and we had to sit for one and a half hours before another locomotive arrived. We then moved into Mallow and had to sit for another half an hour before we left. There was a two hour delay which is not good enough. I call on the Government to invest massively in rail, to change thinking in regard to public transport and to focus totally on rail with a view to upgrading it because it is badly needed.

I thank Deputy Stanton for sharing his time. I, too, have grave reservations about any body being set up which takes powers from a Minister or lacks accountability in the House. We are always complaining about An Bord Pleanála and Bord Fáilte. We seem to be doing ourselves out of a job and making ourselves more irrelevant. Why do we set up such agencies, particularly when we have a Civil Service which we say is well staffed?

A few years ago there was much talk about traffic and transport but there now seems to be an acceptance of it among people. I travelled on the N11 through Cabinteely to the east of Wicklow on Tuesday evening and it was amazing to see the people stuck in the traffic. It was like watching a mass production of "Waiting for Godot" when one looked at the faces of people in the cars, people with their mouths open, radios on and their windows down. There was almost an acceptance, a despair, that nothing could be done.

One might well ask why is there traffic on that road given that the DART has been extended to Greystones and there is a rail service to Bray. I asked myself that question. I received a letter on 12 October 2001 from someone who had recently bought a house in the vicinity of the DART station in Greystones in the hope that they would be able to use the DART to commute into the city. They stated that in recent weeks they have learned that CIE's advertisement, DART to Greystones, is utterly misleading, that there are very few trains, that many of the trains scheduled do not travel, that hundreds of commuters are regularly left stranded in Bray and that no satisfactory explanations are given.

In regard to the rail service, I received a letter from a constituent in Wicklow town who spoke about the carriages and said that the trains are old British Rail stock, freezing in winter and roasting in summer, that the trains are constantly late and that she had been late for work four days in one week. She said the trains are filthy and that she called it the Bangladesh express. I have travelled on that train on occasion. Over a year ago on what one might call a policy public relations promotion for Fine Gael, we travelled on that train. An RTE camera crew came with us but, unfortunately, the cameraman could not get the camera up on his shoulder because the train was so overcrowded. It was a bit of a waste from that point of view.

The Minister mentioned the first phase of the Luas and the service from Tallaght to Connolly Station and from Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green. I raised with the Minister previously – I think Deputy Conor Lenihan represents that constituency – the fact that the terminal will be in or around The Square and I believe there may be a multi-storey car park on one of the old CIE sites. One finds it difficult to get into The Square in the first instance. I do not understand why the Luas terminal was not brought out to the Embankment or somewhere in which there would be ample car parking space. At present we are looking at the Red Cow and another car park somewhere else with shuttle buses. We are back to square one. The ideal would be that one could drive into a car park, step out of one's car and get on to the Luas. I would avail of that service because I come in on that road on a number of mornings and the traffic is very heavy. If I had to drive into The Square in Tallaght, go up one of those multi-storey car parks to get a space and, more often than not, come back down because of a lack of spaces, I would continue to drive into Dublin.

On the east side of the city, there will be stops at Sandyford. I put down questions in the past which examined the feasibility of extending that service to Bray. Deputy Stanton said he was being parochial when he mentioned the east Cork railway, but that is all we can be in that we are here to represent our constituents. Earlier I conveyed the more sane parts of two letters but I get a lot of letters which are not abusive but which are symbolic of the frustration of constituents. There was a review of the Dublin suburban rail system in March 2000. It referred to various matters such as the rail tunnel in central Dublin, two way additional tracks to Kildare and so forth. However, the 50 point executive summary did not mention County Wicklow. The 22 paragraphs of recommendations do not mention County Wicklow. Capacity restraints are mentioned in many places, but never in County Wicklow. This is difficult to understand.

Wicklow town and Arklow are designated as primary and secondary growth centres. Greystones and Bray are in the metropolitan hinterland according to the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin region. Transport policy was supposed to work in tandem with these guidelines. However, there is no mention of County Wicklow in the context of improvements in rail services. When I table questions to the Minister she talks about improvement works on the rail line, but that is only upgrading the safety of the rail line. There is no additional service. One cannot designate areas for population growth and not put in the proper infrastructure.

Councillor Derek Mitchell from Wicklow is on the consultative committee of the DTO. It is only as a result of his pressing the issue of the suburban rail review that the DTO has agreed to examine what can be done for County Wicklow. It should not be necessary to bring such a matter to the attention of the review group. I hope many of the recommendations which have been sent to the review group can be taken on board. I do not know who is to blame for the situation, although the Minister bears ultimate responsibility. There is despair in many areas of County Wicklow at the terrible transport service.

It was not my intention to correct the assertions made by Deputy Timmins in the course of his enjoyably informal contribution to this debate, but there should be some effort at explanation. He expressed his puzzlement that after four years people had given up on the traffic chaos and does not understand the reason nothing has happened. There is a simple explanation. People have got used to the traffic jams. They have to understand there is a medium to long-term solution to this. No Government, not even one comprising the collective brilliance of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party, could have coped—

And the Independents.

—with the extraordinary level of growth this country has achieved in the last four years. There has been 9.9% growth, year on year, for the past four years. That is a golden era of growth; we will never again see such figures over a sustained period.

That level of growth generates unique problems. There was a history of under-investment in our railroads and transport infrastructure. That chronic under-investment is now being addressed by the national development plan, which is a structured way of rolling out infrastructure and public transport solutions that meet the needs of the growing population generated by our economic growth. That is the simple explanation of what has happened.

There is also a political reason. People have seen through the nonsense spoken by a previous Fine Gael spokesman who shares my constituency, Deputy Brian Hayes. He spent the best part of three years talking up the traffic chaos to no avail. The greater publicity he generated by talking up the traffic jams and chaos, the more reality dawned on the ordinary motorist and commuter that everything was not as Fine Gael claimed. They realised it was hype rather than reality and that no Government could cure the problem overnight.

Least of all this Government.

Deputy Hayes, in his usual clever style, got out of that portfolio when he realised the game was up. He is now spreading alarm on other issues.

Deputy Timmins referred earlier to Tallaght and wondered where in Tallaght he could park his car. There will be two opportunities for the Deputy to park his car. He can do so in the multi-storey car park in The Square or he can use the generously appointed park and ride facility which will be located at the M50 junction. It is not true that he will have nowhere to park. If he wishes to make the journey from Wicklow and leave the car in Tallaght, he can leave it in The Square and have a coffee. Alternatively, he can go to the park and ride facility at the M50. It is important he is aware of that rather than ask unnecessary questions of the Minister about his travel options.

There was reference to the late Todd Andrews and the usual canard about getting rid of the Harcourt line. It was a tragedy, but hindsight is wonderful. With hindsight we can see what a terrible decision it was. However, the reality at the time was that Ireland was a chronically under-performing economy. There was no money available to invest in the railway infrastructure because we did not have the population. The Irish were the disappearing race of the globe. People were writing articles in the 1950s that the Irish would disappear from Ireland, such was the outflow from our shores. Todd Andrews is being unfairly blamed by those who look at these matters retrospectively.

Now, however, the State has the resources to invest in the railroads. An era of under-investment is over and we are reinvesting in railroad infrastructure which this agency is being established to supervise. However, it is not just a functional agency for procurement of carriages and so forth. The word "procurement" will probably in the long run be dropped from the agency's title. I envisage the agency evolving a role that extends way beyond the simple procurement of infrastructure to encompass the guiding and development of that infrastructure and the promotion of individual train lines.

The Minister has formed the view that the metro and Luas should be self-governed and privately run. That is appropriate and right. We should steer away from the road taken by the United Kingdom in terms of the privatisation of railroads, but need to look urgently at the issue of public-private partnerships in relation to running individual lines. The centralised marketing by Irish Rail has not been great for individual lines. It is time to bring together industry, business and tourism promotion agencies in consortia which could form joint partnerships with those who run the railroads to promote individual lines. There is great potential to promote competition among the regions of the country by involving the private sector, which benefits from greater passenger numbers using the railroads. There could be far greater competition between different regions and different lines. The Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Galway lines, for example, could be promoted vigorously and aggressively through public-private partnerships to encourage people to use them.

There are good reasons for reinvesting in railroads. The primary reason is environmental. There is huge pressure to get people out of private cars and into public transport, particularly trains. This is an exciting development. The national development plan is flawed to the extent that it puts too much emphasis on motorways. It is a sorry truth that the more motorways there are, the greater the traffic will be. Eventually the motorways become clogged with traffic which defeats the original purpose. They do not become efficient means of travelling from one part of the country to another because journey times are increased with the traffic overload. We must examine how, in the medium to long term, we can reduce the building of motorways and improve journey times between certain key parts of the country.

It is interesting that this agency will be in charge of promotion. In the long run, it will have a developmental role in terms of making the vital switch of commuters from one form of transport to another. That is most important. Dublin does not yet have integrated ticketing. We must look at this again and I hope the Minister will address it as a matter of urgency. People will not switch to using public transport unless there is an integrated ticketing system covering one form of transport to the next. If necessary, integrated ticketing should extend to include taxis and hackneys. We have neglected those options and we should examine them more closely.

Local authorities in Dublin are not co-operating with each other. There is no single transport tsar or chief for the city of Dublin. That is a disgrace and needs to be rectified quickly.

In relation to the quality bus corridors, my local authority, South Dublin County Council, performed its side of the task and delivered on it on time. When those involved in that work hit the city area it was discovered that those involved in the work at that end were not ready for this famous quality bus corridor from Tallaght and had not prepared the way in alerting shop holders, retailers and the general public of their plans to clear an additional lane. If we are serious about this system, we will need a single transport authority or chief for the city of Dublin to co-ordinate the interaction between the four local authorities we have created. It is good those local authorities have been created, but a high level of co-ordination on transport matters is required between the four.

There are compelling environmental reasons we should cut down on the building of motor ways. I am very much with the Green Party on this. We have concentrated too much on the building of roads rather than providing an alternative to them.

The UK experience shows the falseness of privatising the roads. That was a dangerous path the British Government went down. We saw the results of that in the past week when it has had to come back from that. I am not saying that private sector involvement in the railroads is automatically wrong just because the British got it wrong. There is a type of slavish adherence in Ireland to the notion that British practices are some form of lesson for us. The British may have got it wrong in that they failed to invest in the railroads and then expected the new agency to operate efficiently, effectively and profitably in the economic and business sense and from the public point of view.

That brings us back to Aer Lingus and to other issues. When is it right to sell a State asset? That is a perennial question. Many left wing critics would not agree with this view, but if the State decides to privatise a company, it must make sure that the investment levels in it are appropriate. The State has to take a gamble on that and invest in the infrastructure and then sell it. I am not suggesting that should be done with CIE. Public private partnerships in relation to Irish rail should be the way of the future. The management function and the promotion and business development function should be vigorous and led by the private sector side of the partnership. In the long run companies like Irish Rail are not particularly well attuned or ready for the changeover to being operational and commercial in the way that is now required in the modern world.

Will the Deputy give way to a question?

I would be delighted to do that.

Is the Deputy saying that in the long run he would be in favour of privatising Iarnród Éireann and the rail network, if it was made ready for such an eventuality?

I am not suggesting it should be privatised lock, stock and barrel. If the Deputy has been listening to me carefully, he would know that I believe the private partnership is the best way forward and that the private sector should take a role in the management and running of the commercial aspect of the railroads. In other words, it should take a role in the promotion of the service as enjoyed or not enjoyed by the passenger but the basic infrastructure would still be publicly owned.

A similar analogy could be drawn in terms of whether one would be in favour of the privatisation of the country's airports. Some members of the Government are in favour of privatising Aer Rianta while some members of it, including the Minister for Finance, are opposed to the privatis ation of State infrastructure such as airports. The obvious compromise between those two positions is to allow a franchise or a private sector company to run the airport while the airports continue to be State owned. That would achieve the best result of all. The State would get a return on its asset.

This is what I am talking about regarding the railroads. The company that owns the infrastructure, the land and the basic core assets of Irish Rail would be State owned and the operational side of the commercial development would essentially be a private task or a task given to a public private partnership or a private partner. That is the answer to all of this. At that level the State would be responsible for the infrastructure, its development and reinvestment in it and it would also be responsible in the long run for the safety, security and strategic planning of rail network. In that way the environmental and other economic imperatives, for which only a Government can plan, can be made. I refer to strategic investment that the private sector is reluctant to make, particularly in relation to railroads and large public infrastructure. The State takes on board and guides those decisions and the operational side could be run based on a private sector ethos. That would help everyone.

We are aware that the service to date has not been great on Irish railways. We have a rail service to Belfast that is arguably up there with the best of services available in the rest of Europe, but one is faced with an inferior service on almost every other rail journey in Ireland one might have to make. It is difficult even to get a cup of tea or, if one does get one, to get one that is hot when delivered. It is usually moderately cool. There seems to be a dichotomy in the service in that tea is either too hot or too cold, it is never just right, but that is a minor point.

We are living through exciting times in terms of reinvestment in the railroads. This procurement agency is one of the ways that will be done.

I was intrigued by Deputy Naughten's assertion that the Government was responsible for appointing political hacks of one kind or another to State boards. The board that has been appointed to this procurement agency is a model for what we should do with regard to State boards. Its chairman is Mr. Padraic White, a former leading person in business and commercial life. He is a former chief executive of the IDA and since then has been plying his wares in the private sector. I would have thought he is an ideal person to be chairman of an agency such as this which will have to deal with large procurement issues and big picture purchases. For the information of the House, including Deputy Naughten, the other members of the board are also interesting. They include, Mr. David Manley, an accountant and former president of the chamber of commerce, Margaret O'Mahony, a transport engineer and a lecturer in Trinity College, which is not a bad qualification to have as a member of a board such as this, Colin Hunt, an economist, Fionnuala Kennedy, an economist and Tom Wall, assistant secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The mixture of those skills is perfect for the long-term development of the railroads in which this agency will have a role. Its board members have a mixture of private sector skills from accounting to private sector companies. It has a person with trade union experience and a transport engineer and academic who would be aware of the bigger issues affecting railroads in the long run.

This board is a model for the type of board that all the politically correct Members of this House insist should be in place if we are to have a company that runs well. I do not necessarily agree with that line of thinking that someone must be qualified in a particular area to serve on a State board nor do I agree with the assertion that political appointments ipso facto by their nature are bad. Some of the appointments made to Irish Rail by the Members opposite were good chairmen, in some cases, and also distinguished business people. We must stop suggesting that the people we, as political parties, collectively appoint are somewhat less than qualified. We all know the strength of the people we have supporting us as political parties. Some of them are extraordinary people who, if there was justice and fairness in our political system, would probably be better off being in this House running the country, but for a variety of reasons, financial and otherwise, they have chosen not to go down the road of politics, which is a poor and badly paid profession. Who could blame them for their choice? We should try to enable those with honest political motivation, whether they support Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil, to assist and help develop public companies.

It is pernicious nonsense to suggest that one has to be specifically qualified to be on a board. One does not need to be a pilot to be on the board of Aer Lingus or an engineer to be involved in the NRA. It is a totally wrong presumption, as the real strength of public boards, as in the private sector, is to have a range of skills available. Those who can give expertise from different backgrounds are needed and this is often achieved by the system of political appointments to State boards. People with a range of different valuable and desirable skills are appointed. We should continue with such a strategy and stop the nonsense of criticising a system which has served us reasonably well.

A number of State companies, including Irish Rail and CIE, are not regarded as being managed very well. A series of different measures, including the establishment of this agency, have been taken to reform companies. In some cases, public-private partnerships have been set up or people have been allowed to run parts of companies, which is particularly desirable given recent experience. It would have been foolish to simply throw money at Irish Rail or CIE while allowing the existing management culture to remain intact. The Government is addressing the underlying problems, but it will take a long time. The indus trial relations problems of the Irish rail network will not be cured overnight, but greater results will be slowly achieved as we invest more.

I agree with a number of sentiments expressed by Deputy Conor Lenihan. There is merit in many of his comments. The Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2001, has been overdue for some time. The tradition of inefficiency, unreliability and under-financing in the rail system has to be ended.

I raised questions in the House about 20 years ago about the capacity and willingness of Iarnród Éireann to raise the railway bridge in Castlebar. The reply given by the then Minister was that it could not be done as there was to be an attempt to electrify the lines. It was also said that we were to have air conditioned carriages, but I pointed out to the Minister that the carriages were already air conditioned. One needed an overcoat if travelling by rail in the west. Things have changed, however, not just as regards money, but in terms of management, quality, efficiency and professionalism. I have always been a supporter of railways. It is a fact that more people and freight can be moved per hour by train than by any other method. There should not be any argument about this. We have had almost five years of unprecedented economic growth and unprecedented generation of wealth. Prioritisation and clarity of agenda are needed if we are to deliver on this growth.

I agree with Deputy Lenihan that the national plan is somewhat skewed in favour of the development of motorways and dual carriageways. A massive development of 100 km of road between Kilcullen and Waterford, 100 metres wide and costing £550 million, was announced last Monday. It will be implemented by 2007. A gargantuan swathe of land is to be transformed forever. Cars, lorries and other vehicles will travel on the motorway only to arrive at further bottlenecks. Bottlenecks have always been evident on the road to the west. There can be delays of up to ten miles at Enfield on a Friday or Sunday evening. When the motorway was built at Lucan, it simply meant that traffic could get to the end of the new stretch of road more quickly before becoming jammed. There should be a readjustment of the national development plan in favour of the rail system, provided there is clarity of agenda and an ability to deliver. Motoring is no longer a joy in Ireland, as it has become a lethal pursuit. I drive to Dublin twice a week and observe at least ten incidences of potentially serious accidents. If a driver in front is travelling slowly and somebody takes a chance by passing out six or eight lorries and cars, an accident may happen with tragic consequences.

More people would use the rail system if it was reliable, efficient and cost-effective. It is a pleasure to travel on a good train system. I travelled between Castlebar and Dublin by train for years, but it became so unreliable that I stopped. There has been a great deal of work in recent years on the line from Heuston to Manulla Junction, just outside Castlebar. It has led to a great improvement, long overdue and much needed. I understand the projection for lines to be upgraded next year is being cut back from 27 miles to 12. It is a shame if that is the case and another example of the lack of clarity and lack of ability to deliver which I mentioned. Why has the projection to provide money for the upgrading of 27 miles of track next year been changed to allow for just 12 miles? Is it because money has been withdrawn, curtailed or overspent?

Iarnród Éireann has spent a great deal of money on the freight yard in Ballina. It is a big yard, well capable of handling major equipment. A number of multinational industries in the west use the yard extensively. The line from Manulla Junction to Ballina is inferior and should be placed high on the priority list for upgrading. If the freight yard in Ballina is to be used extensively and if investment is to be attracted to County Mayo, the upgrading of the line has to be prioritised. The line from Manulla Junction, through Castlebar, to Westport should also be finished, as both spur lines are the last remaining segments to be redeveloped. Iarnród Éireann will then be in a position to manage effectively a quality asset.

We need to know what will happen to Heuston Station. There have been rumours of a new station there for some time, but plans have been shelved on numerous occasions. What is the position? On Friday evenings, when the stampede begins on the platforms, people are often knocked in the rush, including people who are on waiting lists for hip operations or other procedures. In most European countries, one can book a ticket in advance. I know this happens in part on the southern line, where travellers can book tickets on the Internet or at stations. There is a practical problem, however, as if a person has a ticket they are entitled to get on the train. A regulation needs to be put in place which takes into account best practice in other countries. It is not right that women with young children and elderly people who come to Dublin to visit, shop or go to hospital are expected to stand in overcrowded carriages. It would be practical for consumers if they were able to book tickets in advance on a system that works.

I hope the long-standing practice of having different rates of fare from the west to Dublin and from Dublin to the west will be dealt with for once and for all. There are many types of promotion. It was once dearer to travel from Dublin to Westport than from Westport to Dublin, even though one did not travel a longer distance. It was an anomaly that Iarnród Éireann seemed not to want people to travel from Dublin, but did want people to travel to the city.

People are creatures of habit. Hundreds of students arrive at the rail stations in Westport and Castlebar on Sunday in particular for the 6 p.m. train. They decide to go to a football match or wait around after lunch to spend time with their families before taking the overcrowded 6 p.m. train. They could catch the train at 12.55 p.m. and it might be in the interest of Iarnród Éireann to provide an inducement to encourage people to take the earlier train, such as offering tickets that cost £5 less. Students would avail of such promotions and it would spread the load between the two trains and make it more comfortable for everyone.

These practical points should be implemented in the interests of consumers who will then use the services. Road travel is now unpredictable. One can leave a certain point at the same time in the morning but find that one's arrival time in Dublin varies by up to 90 minutes, depending on traffic jams or unforeseen incidents. There is room for an early bird train service from Westport and Ballina to Dublin because one cannot exceed the speed limit on the roads. It is the law and one is likely to be apprehended by the Garda or caught by speed cameras. It could cost £200 to get to Dublin by car if one is in a hurry and is caught exceeding the speed limit. When penalty points on licences are introduced, driving and breaking the speed limit could become a heavy burden. This is as it should be and, in this context, people would prefer to use a good train service where they could read a newspaper and have their breakfast.

Deputy Naughten referred to the western corridor involving a rail link to Rosslare. A decision has been made in principle. There was a long campaign over 20 years, which was led by an tAthair MacGréil, to save the line. Legal cases were taken to ensure that the line could not be lifted. It is still intact in parts. In terms of its redevelopment, there is enormous potential for freight movement, particularly in relation to forestry which is ag fás in the west and north-west in huge tracts of land. In addition to normal freight, the line would be of assistance in sending harvested trees to the plants that use them.

The number of trucks using the roads is continually increasing. I pointed out in the debate last night that multinational companies in County Mayo alone move £3.5 billion worth of freight by road annually. Much of that freight could be sent by rail, thereby eliminating tonnage from the roads and reducing the impact on the environment. That figure does not take into account the indigenous freight generated by other companies in the county and western region in general.

When one arrives in Heuston Station, one then has to get a taxi or a bus or walk to the city centre. When I first started coming to the House, the train used to arrive in Westland Row. This meant one arrived in the city centre and was in a position to travel from there to any point. There may have been good reasons for the change but a person arriving in Heuston Station must travel on by some other method or walk to the city centre. I am not sure what the plans for the new Heuston Station involve or whether this aspect will be reconsidered.

It is a question of considering what could be on offer and I am a strong believer in the capacity of the rail system to be a powerful social and commercial asset to the country. Iarnród Éireann has had a social remit over the years, but it has always needed heavy subsidisation from the Government. The advent of the PPP system is good and I agree with Deputy Lenihan about bringing commercial efficiency into the social end of the rail system in terms of professionalism. While there is a social element in relation to rural parts of the country, the system should be also professional, efficient and competitive.

I ask the Minister to outline how the industrial unrest that has been endemic in Iarnród Éireann will be related to the procurement business or will it have any function in that regard? Will it strictly relate to the business of carriages, etc? If they are not in hand already, plans should be made for the procurement of new carriages. I understand a number are on order and that other good carriages are being purchased from British Rail. However, the purchase of further new carriages should be planned. In addition, the problem of disabled people never getting a fair deal should be addressed. I appreciate that issues such as the width and length of platforms, heights and carriages had to be taken into account, but it is a terrible indictment of us all that a young girl from Ballina in a wheelchair had to sit in the mail van on a number of well documented occasions.

In one incident, when she arrived in Heuston Station and her friend got off the train to seek assistance, the train was shifted half a mile away to a siding with her still on board. Such problems can be, and are being, rectified but there should be clarity. What will be the position with regard to the new carriages? When will they be available and how many facilities for disabled people will be provided? I recall the famous disabled Olympic champion, Rosaleen Gallagher, who said when she arrived in her wheelchair in Castlebar that they could carry her on because she was a person too and she had a right to travel on the train. She had to sit in her wheelchair between two carriages for the entire journey to Dublin. This was a number of years ago and the situation has changed. However, it should change more and much faster.

I support the thrust of the Bill and I ask the Minister to refer to the idea of an early bird service from the west. I also want information on the completion of the lines from Manulla to Ballina, for freight and passengers, and from Manulla to Westport. I ask the Minister to clarify that there will be no reduction on the mileage that it was intended to complete next year. I also ask her to clarify the positions regarding carriages, Heuston Station, consumer rights and practicalities for train users. Promotions would result in many people using a system that they know can be good, but which has operated, for whatever reason, to an inferior level for many years.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. The railways have a long and proud tradition in Ireland. The advent of the railways was as big a revolution in the lives of ordinary people as computers have been in the lives of people today. As a young person, I remember how, on a fair day in Tubbercurry, cattle had to be brought to the local railway station and taken from there through Sligo and Leitrim to Northern Ireland and exported to England and Scotland. Unfortunately, cattle bought at marts these days must be exported on lorries.

That route was part of the closed Colooney-Claremorris railway line. I would like this railway brought into use again. It was the line on which I had my first rail trip and it should be brought into use again to facilitate tourists and people working in Tubbercurry and Charlestown who wish to travel to Sligo. I hope that some day a Minister will reopen the track. Trains on this line carried many emigrants from Tubbercurry, Sligo and Claremorris via Limerick to Cobh where they departed for the United States. Deputy Kenny referred to Father MacGréil and I pay tribute to him for trying to keep the line open and develop a branch line to Knock Airport. I hope some day he will succeed.

What a pity we did not have a Minister like Deputy O'Rourke in the 1950s and 1960s when many branch lines were forced to close and the track was taken up, particularly in the north-west. This resulted in increased traffic on our roads and nowadays the road network cannot cope with the volume of traffic. The narrow gauge lines that were taken up could have been used to develop a significant tourist attraction such as the one I visited in Snowdonia in north Wales.

The upgrading of the rail system is a long and tedious process. Much needs to be done in laying modern, continuous track and the provision of comfortable, air conditioned rolling stock. I acknowledge the work of the Government and the Minister, in particular, in upgrading the Dublin-Sligo line. A total of £40 million has been invested in the line over the past four years, the vast majority of which was used to lay continuous welded track and concrete sleepers. Some level crossings, fencing and bridges have been upgraded but the bulk of the money was invested in safety, which meant replacing old timber sleepers and joined track with concrete sleepers and continuous welded track.

Our railway system is an essential part of our infrastructure for both passenger and freight traffic. At a time when road travel has become more hazardous we are privileged that Ireland's rail safety record is second to none. It is alarming, however, that there is a new sinister threat to passenger safety, namely stone throwing. Stones are thrown at trains as they approach Dublin city and Connolly Station, in particular, and I have witnessed people being injured. I was travelling to a football match in Dublin on a train one Sunday when a stone crashed though the window of top of us as we played cards. It is a shame and I am aware of a number of incidents which resulted in people needing hospital treatment. I call on the relevant authorities to take all the necessary steps to eliminate these acts of outrageous vandalism. Young men are involved and if they were spoken to it may not happen again.

Trains are the most comfortable mode of travel. Approximately 20 minutes has been saved in the journey time from Dublin to Sligo. The service no longer stops at Maynooth because an Arrow service has been provided to the town, which is welcome. It is wonderful that a number of stations such as my local station, Ballymote, have been upgraded considerably.

I agree with Deputy Kenny that people should be allowed to book train seats in advance. Sometimes people arrive to catch a train in the evening but all the seats have been taken and this creates a problem for elderly people in particular. Certain tickets should be capable of being booked in advance. Rail companies throughout Europe provide advance booking which means that one is guaranteed a seat and that would be a welcome development.

I welcome the provision of a daily service from Longford to Dublin, which means that people from the midlands and north-west can go to work in Dublin and return home in the evening. Constituents of mine from Carrick-on-Shannon travel daily to Dublin to work. They drive to Longford, take the train to Dublin and return home in the evening. This significant improvement and the investment of £40 million in the rail service has been of tremendous benefit to those using the Dublin-Sligo line.

I recall that when Deputy Jim Mitchell was Minister for Transport during the 1980s I would regularly ask him to upgrade the Dublin-Sligo line during debates in the House. Afterwards he would ask me how was the line and I would say to him that the Government had not spent much on it yet. However, there was not much money around at the time. The provision of EU funding has allowed the Government to fund the upgrading of our railway lines. The rail network is excellent and many people avail of it. The Dublin-Cork line is one of the best and the finest rolling stock is used on it. However, I hope the services to Westport, Ballina and Sligo will be upgraded to the same standard as the Dublin-Cork line so that the west can benefit from the Celtic tiger. The upgrading of the Dublin-Sligo line is almost complete with only three miles of continuous welded track to be laid. When that has been done, it will be one of the best lines in Ireland.

Deputy Brennan outlined for us everything that was splendid about travelling to the west and Tubbercurry, in particular, in the good old days. He will also recall an occasion many years ago when he travelled to Dublin and missed a boat connection because the train was late. I wonder whether anything has changed in the interim.

There has been great change.

We criticise our rail and bus systems too often and that affects the morale of the workers. I thank those who work on the Dublin-Cork service as it is absolutely excellent. They are generous with their time, forthcoming and amiable. They sell Iarnród Éireann well. In recent years I have been very pleased with Irish Rail's marketing strategy for the Dublin-Cork service. It is treated as a commodity which provides a comfortable mode of travel and more and more people are leaving their cars behind. That has generated its own problems but I commend the Minister on the funding that has been made available for the upgrading of the Dublin-Cork line because travel between both cities is now faster and more comfortable with a dramatic improvement in the quality of carriages.

The integrated transport system is the new phrase. When one talks about transport integration, one is talking about roads, railways and airports. It is vital to co-ordinate all such activities. If we do not do that, it will not be possible to encourage people out of their cars and into the trains. It is important to co-ordinate all the services, including the buses which feed the train stations and the airports. We must ensure the necessary funding is put in place.

We should not separate the National Roads Authority from the national transport system. We should look at the mistakes which have been made to date and at the road network around Dublin and the airport. Although an excellent major road infrastructure was put in place, it seems strange that we did not also design a light rail system which would take people from Dublin city centre to the airport. There is no point crying about something which did not happen, but it should have been done. As our population expands and we continue to invest in our national development plan, it is important to ensure that county and city development plans take into account the co-operation which needs to exist between the National Roads Authority and the rail network.

I will give the House an example of what I mean and I hope I am forgiven for being parochial. There are 16,000 people in Ballincollig. A new strategic plan for the next 20 years will soon be introduced. The NRA is currently carrying out a scoping study on a road to link Ballincollig with the northern ring road and the Mallow road. It is a sensible and logical plan. However, the NRA is looking only at the possibility of a road link and not a rail link which would take people from the western end of the city to the new stations which will be developed in the Blarney, Monard and other growth areas. That would help the new developments in the city. That level of co-operation is vital if we want to get the integrated system we desire.

There is much property adjacent to our railway stations which could be better utilised. Strategic plans should be drawn up to develop them. Could we develop them in tandem with IDA Ireland, Forfás, the county enterprise boards or the Leader programmes? There are opportunities to develop the land banks and buildings at many of our railway stations throughout the country. We have not utilised them to their full capacity. Perhaps Iarnród Éireann would benefit from the small businesses and industries which could develop around such centres.

I want to speak about the Cork strategic study and the implications for the rail network and the integrated transport system. Part of the strategic study includes a plan for dock development in Cork city. We will refurbish Ceannt railway station and make it more customer friendly. However, I have been told that Bus Éireann will not have its main terminus in the new development. We are planning for the next 20 years and trying to remodel the railway station, yet people will have to walk into the city centre or get a taxi. There will not be a major bus terminus in the proposed station which would help the flow of commuter traffic. The Minister should ask Bus Éireann and Irish Rail to ensure that there is proper integration between the rail and bus services in the new development. If that does not happen, it will be a big deficit in the overall transport system.

It is proposed to service many of our towns with improved quality bus corridors. I live in a town where the population has increased from 4,500 to 20,000 in the past 20 to 25 years, yet we do not have a city bus service. Carrigaline, Glanmire and Blarney do not have one either. Yet the strategic study suggests that the main emphasis will be the refurbishment of the rail line to ensure that more stations are developed to accommodate people. It will also ensure that more buses and quality bus corridors are provided.

The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dan Wallace, was a member of Cork Corporation when the LUTS plan was introduced which placed great emphasis on rail and bus services. However, as the land use and transportation study came to an end, a proper review of how much money was put into the transport infrastructure was not carried out. An adequate level of funding was not put in to match the growth of the towns which were part of the overall plan. This strategic plan is based on the fact that houses should be built beside a rail line. If we want to be consistent, the rail line must be extended to Midleton. The county development plan proposes to zone land along the rail line which will enable people to leave their cars at home and take the train into town. However, if a bus terminus and service are not provided at the new Ceannt station, it will not work.

A situation is developing at present which is extraordinary for Bus Éireann. New buses will be provided for the Ballincollig service at the end of the year. However, while it will have capital funding, the funding to employ people to operate the buses has not been provided. It has been suggested that the buses will be provided but there is no guarantee that there will be enough funding to employ people to operate the buses when they come on stream.

The Minister should examine the position in Ballincollig and Carrigaline where additional bus services are being proposed. He should ensure that the necessary funding is available. In order for bus corridors to operate successfully it is vital to examine the example of some British cities where on-street parking is banned. Drivers are thus being forced to park off the streets in multi-storey car parks. If that system was introduced here our bus system could operate far more efficiently and effectively.

I am glad of the opportunity to commend the Bill.

I wish to share time with Deputy Donal Carey.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

This important Bill provides for the involvement of public-private partnerships concerning Iarnród Éireann in what can be a growth area. I wish to seek clarification of certain matters, however. Is the Minister aware that a comprehensive feasibility study of a commuter rail project in Sligo has been completed and has been on her desk for the past six months? When will the Minister give a decision on this innovative project which involves the towns of Ballysadare, Collooney and Ballymote?

I acknowledge the investment that has been made in continuous rail and I congratulate the Government for that, but now that we have the track it should be used. It represents a great opportunity for economic development.

I must acknowledge the work undertaken by the south Sligo rapid transport group, whose personnel includes Tim Mulcahy from Ballymote, Wendy Lyons from Collooney, and Jude Gilligan from Ballysadare. These three towns south of Sligo are growth centres which are experiencing a greatly increased level of road traffic. The group's study has lain on the Minister's desk for six months, yet the committee has received no reaction to it.

I commend the south Sligo group's committee for having appointed Halcro, the leading European consultants, to work on the study. The study has provided clear indications that such a rapid transit system would be economically feasible. I appeal to the Minister to make direct contact with the south Sligo rapid transport group concerning this important issue. We should get a commitment and a decision from the Minister. When voluntary groups engage top consultants it is a clear indication that the project is feasible. The massive investment that has been made in continuous rail track underscores the transport opportunities that exist in the Sligo area. Progress has been made in the development of transport infrastructure in the Border, midlands and west region, including the Border counties. The investment that has been made presents huge opportunities but the Minister should ensure that people can commute from Ballymote or Boyle to Sligo.

Given the changes that are now being planned in transport infrastructure, the role of private enterprise is becoming increasingly important. Business opportunities will now arise from the modernisation of railway lines that have been under-utilised to date. The Bill represents what is very much an east coast brief from the point of view of alternative services. It would be remiss of the Government, however, not to avail of the opportunities arising from railtrack investment in the west. The associated private enterprise opportunities should be allowed to develop also and if a public-private partnership opportunity arises it should be exploited.

I am disappointed to note that the Minister has not replied to the report which has been on her desk for the past six months. I do not know the reason for this but I would be interested to have her reaction. Her Department should contact the relevant committee for serious consultation. I would like to hear the Minister's opinion on this important issue.

The development of the Sligo-Claremorris-Limerick railway line is an issue which is dear to my heart. The Minister has indicated that it would cost £100 million to re-open this line but one should consider that £45 million is being spent on the Claremorris bypass. I raised this matter on the Adjournment recently in order to establish the prospects of re-opening the Collooney to Claremorris railway as part of the Sligo-Limerick route. There is an unbalanced approach to the east and west coasts. Millions of pounds are being spent on roads but I cannot understand why such investment is not being made in the railways. Some weeks ago I saw an Iarnród Éireann engineer on TV3 who clearly indicated the viability of this opportunity.

Such an investment of £100 million would present opportunities to develop the entire west coast, further opening up the tourism potential of the area. I congratulate Dr. Michael MacGréil who, as chairman of the western intercounty railway committee, has repeatedly made the case for restoring the Collooney-Claremorris line as part of the Sligo-Limerick route. Over the years, Dr. MacGréil has discussed the project with Deputies representing the region.

I understand that the Department is preparing to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on re-opening the Dublin-Navan rail link. A fraction of those sums would benefit the west by providing rail transport from Sligo to Limerick and on to Waterford and Rosslare. The idea represents a huge potential for the future. We are extraordinarily lucky that the rail system is owned by the State. If the Government will not take the initiative then the Western Development Commission should do so. All we are seeking from the Minister is a feasibility study.

This morning, I heard that more consultants are being appointed by the Government. It is time for the Minister to commission a consultant to produce a report on the Sligo-Limerick rail link. Failing that, I am calling on the Western Development Commission, a statutory body, to take the initiative by commissioning such a study. That rail line would be of benefit to so many counties on the western seaboard for which the commission has responsibility. While we have not succeeded in commissioning a report so far, the Western Development Commission has a mandate to work for the development of the western counties. I am also calling on the enterprise boards in the relevant counties to co-fund such a feasibility study. I am convinced that such a rail link would play a major role in developing tourism by opening up the western seaboard to growth opportunities both at local and regional level.

Access to the west by modern public transport is vital for such developments to occur. The rail link I have outlined would also bring about a reduction in road accidents as well as promoting energy savings. So many benefits would accrue from this link that I cannot understand why it is not being accepted by the Government. We are talking about spending £1 billion on the dome in Dublin – although the Taoiseach is having second thoughts about it now – but such investment is required for the BMW region.

There are many committees and designated areas, but it is all talk and no action. A clear commitment to an improved transport system in the west is required in order to develop the region, particularly given the existing levels of road traffic. A proper study of transport needs would illustrate the demand for such a rail system. The Government must try to understand the current transport difficulties so as to be able to offer adequate responses instead of paying lip service to the problem.

We must examine the development of the Sligo line and the rolling stock which is up to 40 years old. There is great potential in the region but, unfortunately, it has few population centres. The main connection is a twice daily service between Dublin and Sligo. The loss of the connection to Enniskillen was a significant blow if we are to grow the island of Ireland as a tourism destination. Rail is a luxurious way to travel.

A top consultancy firm, Halcro, has been commissioned to produce a feasibility study regarding the south Sligo rapid transit initiative. I appeal to the Minister to approve this proposal as it is a great idea which will bring life to this important Bill. There is no point introducing a Bill for the sake of it. I hope this legislation will provide guidelines for private sector involvement to provide this service in south Sligo. I congratulate the communities in Ballisodare, Collooney and Ballymote for this idea and for their commitment to concluding this study. I hope the Minister will respond favourably in the next week.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on Iarnród Éireann as it exists in my constituency. The West Clare Railway was known in song and story such as "Are Ye Right There Michael". However, in the early 1960s the Government closed the service for economic reasons. This was a narrow gauge railway which is working well in India to where the equipment was shipped.

This region is also served by a main line which runs from Limerick to Galway, through Athenry. This line was closed and then reopened and 100 passengers use the 6.45 a.m. service every day travelling to work in Limerick or on to Dublin or other destinations. However, the line is not attractive as a 30 mph speed limit applies.

As a result of the growth in passenger numbers, I understood that Iarnród Éireann was to complete the upgrading of this line. However, no upgrading has taken place on the seven mile stretch which was supposed to be completed this year. At the same time Clare County Council and my colleagues are seeking the opening of a rail spur to Shannon Airport which would take heavy traffic off the Limerick to Ennis and Limerick to Shannon routes. This would provide a modern airport with a rail spur.

There has been an absence of thought and planning in this regard. For example, a bridge is being built at Ballycasey Cross which will only accommodate road traffic travelling from Sixmilebridge and east Clare into Shannon. This was an opportunity to provide additional road space if Iarnród Éireann contemplated a rail spur. The Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, told her Fianna Fáil colleagues in Clare that she supports such a spur. I criticise Iarnród Éireann as it does not seem to co-ordinate its plans with the NRA or other infrastructural developments which are taking place. Significant amounts of money will be spent on this new bridge if the Minister obtains the money to provide the spur connecting the rail line from Limerick or the west to Shannon Airport. It is disheartening that planning has not been integrated.

Given the quality of the line and the 30 mph speed limit, I do not understand why work on the seven mile stretch has not been completed this year. Why are these areas placed on the long finger? Ennis has experienced significant growth in recent years. I could suggest that the town has grown every year since I became a Deputy for Clare in 1981. I am proud to be associated with that growth, but we are limiting access opportunities to the wider world by not developing this rail line.

There is also the issue of the station in Ennis. Deputy Batt O'Keeffe spoke about proposals for Cork. At least there seems to be a happy relationship between Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann in Ennis and the bus and rail stations are amalgamated. However, the station requires upgrading, a rub of paint and to be brought into the 21st century. Such developments would persuade more people to use it and would make it more attractive for visitors to travel the line from Ennis to Limerick when it is provided.

The problem will not be resolved unless a feeder service, similar to that planned for Dublin, is provided for the Ennis to Limerick line. This will require the acquisition of small commuter trains. The procurement of trains is provided for in the Bill, but this rolling stock is being acquired for Dublin only. There is nothing about the south whether Cork, Ennis or Limerick. Are we to be given cast-offs when the tired engines begin to creak in Heuston Station? Will these engines be sent down to us and used on the Limerick to Ennis line? That is unacceptable. When Iarnród Éireann is planning commuter services it should plan for areas throughout the country. Growth areas such as Ennis and Limerick are attractive. Deputy Batt O'Keeffe spoke about Ballincollig and Cork city and there are plenty of growth areas outside Dublin.

When Minister of State I supported Father MacGréil's initiative and I still do. This initiative entails the reopening of the Collooney-Claremorris-Limerick line. There is a need for a western corridor to act as a counter. However, this proposal has been left in abeyance. It was put on the long finger when my party was in Government, but the Western Development Commission provided new opportunities. The commission was given authority to provide venture capital for infrastructural developments which would not normally be undertaken by the private sector. By securing private sector investment in a public-private partnership using Western Development Commission venture capital, the entire line from Limerick to Claremorris could be opened through the provision of small commuter services. These services could also transport freight, such as that from maturing forests, which is currently being moved by road. The volume of forestry products being delivered to Ennis station is growing significantly. To complement the significant investment in the roads infrastructure, the Western Development Commission and the private sector could be given a licence to operate commuter services on the Sligo to Limerick line. It would be possible to run short commuter services around Sligo, Ennis, Shannon and Limerick.

Money has always been an obstacle in regard to the provision of rail services. When I was a Minister of State, Iarnród Éireann was prepared to upgrade the line to Athenry but nothing has happened. The line between Ennis and Athenry is in an appalling state of repair. Will it take another Fr. MacGréil to ensure the Ennis to Athenry line remains open? The Bill, which is somewhat restrictive, should address these serious local issues. The purchasing power provided for in the Bill should extend to the whole country.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Bill, 2000. The Bill's main purpose is to provide for the establishment of an independent commercial statutory body – the Railway Procurement Agency – whose main function will be the procurement of railway infrastructure. The Bill is also designed to facilitate private sector participation in the construction, operation and maintenance of new railways. The Bill repeals the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Act, 1996, and re-enacts its provisions in a modified form to provide a single railway procurement procedure and to provide for the regulation of light rail. Nobody could disagree with the purposes of the Bill as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, foremost of which is the development of quality infrastructure to support a reliable and efficient public transport system.

Most of us have used rail services. There is much discussion in Dublin about the closure of the Harcourt Street line, a real old chestnut. Hopefully, we will witness visionary developments in regard to this line and others. It must be acknowledged that serious work has been done to ensure we have an adequate transport network in the years ahead. Many of my colleagues from the regions referred to line closures and, of course, we would like to see these lines reopened. I spend a considerable amount of time in County Cork. A colleague from that region informs me that it takes him as long to get out of Cork county as it does to get from Cork to Dublin. It is difficult to comprehend why anyone decided to close the regional rail lines, such as the Bantry line which was closed in the 1960s, which operated in the past. These lines should be reopened to serve what are now densely populated areas.

The closure of rail lines throughout the country has had a ripple effect on the owners of domestic and commercial property along those lines. If these property owners want to develop their properties, they are informed that the future operation of the lines is under consideration. I appreciate, as would most reasonable people, the need for due consideration to be given to these issues. However, in certain instances, State and semi-State agencies and bodies working under their aegis are perceived as leaving matters on the back burner for unacceptably long periods.

Although it is outside my constituency, I was contacted by people in the Kilmessan area in which there is an old railway line. These people made inquiries through the appropriate channels many years ago but to no avail. In one case, a commercial property owner who is surrounded by competitors who are free to develop their businesses has been informed that he cannot develop his commercial activity because of the potential implications of such development on the disused line. Swift decisions should be made about these lines once they have been given adequate consideration. That would allow people to weigh up their options, sell their properties and move on rather than having to wait years for a decision which may or may not benefit them. It is frustrating for property owners to find themselves prohibited from extending either their homes or businesses to make them more viable.

I intend to focus on services in the Dublin region and wish to acknowledge the fact that whenever I bring an issue to the Minister's attention, she is more than willing to attempt to resolve and progress it. Over the years I have tabled many questions on the operation of the transport network in the Dublin region. The Minister has often approached me privately and given me as much assistance as possible.

I recently brought to her attention the difficulties that commuters experience during peak travel hours in the city area. I expressed my concerns about DART and in particular on grounds of health and safety. She very quickly arranged for the chief railway inspector, Mr. John Welby, to meet with me at a station of my designation, at a time of my choosing, to see the difficulties that commuters experience at peak times. I appreciate Mr. Welby taking the time and trouble to meet me and I appreciate his understanding of the issues that I have brought to the attention of the Minister.

When a Member tables a question on the use of a particular system by a semi-State company, the response is often that operational matters are the day-to-day responsibility of the relevant board. That bothers me. The DART, which runs through my constituency, has the potential to bring many thousands of people to and from the city in safety. It allows users to avoid using other forms of transport, both public and private. I have a great appreciation for the work of Iarnród Éireann, CIE, Bus Átha Cliath, DART and all the others that have been involved in the provision and delivery of transport services. They have one of the best safety records not alone in this State, but internationally. I say that of DART in particular, it has a very proud safety record.

I am known by my constituents to attend DART stations at the peak time of 7.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m.—

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Why does the Deputy go there?

To meet constituents.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Forgive me, I thought the Deputy had no car.

I am often on the platform when the 8.05 a.m. DART arrives. It is not difficult to understand why people might consider choosing other options. When the DART arrives—

Will the Member give way to a question?

Does the Deputy feel that setting up another agency, not accountable to the Minister, might make it more difficult for him to represent his constituents by way of parliamentary questions in the House?

I have concerns about setting up another agency. One must try to achieve a balance. If this will assist in the procurement of new railway infrastructure that otherwise could not be achieved and bring in PPPs, that would be good. On the other hand I appreciate where Deputy Stanton is coming from with his question. I am somewhat frustrated with the existing system. One wonders why only two DART carriages arrive in a busy urban station at peak time. When a question is tabled, it is referred to as being an operational matter and therefore a matter for the day-to-day running of the service. In other instances when it relates to an outside agency, it is not a matter for the Minister to respond to.

There is a tremendous safety record, but I am concerned at the high numbers currently using the DART. I am also concerned at the capacity of Iarnród Éireann to respond to current requirements. Unfortunately hooligans did tremendous damage by setting fire to DART carriages in Fairview depot. That put a number of carriages out of use. At the same time 16 new carriages were delivered.

Maybe we should be prepared to go ahead with new ventures, such as those proposed, but let us correct the ills of the past and tie them into contractual arrangements. I hold very strong views on Bus Átha Cliath. It is heavily subvented via CIE, which in turn is subvented by Government. It is my desire to see these companies get subvention with a mechanism, by means of consumer response, to determine if there is a satisfactory bus service in place. The first I hear of a bus service being withdrawn or re-routed in my constituency is when a constituent calls me. In many instances people have a genuine concern it has been done because the population in the area is elderly and many have free travel passes. The perception is that the service is being withdrawn because it does not generate cash. I believe these decisions are made by the service provider without regard for, or communication with, the Department.

I welcome an opportunity like this that may allow us to tie such issues into new mechanisms. We can learn from the past where agencies have been established and then we find that we cannot find anything out about it in the House. We cannot get a reply because it is not the responsibility of the Minister in question. If establishing new agencies creates these kinds of problems, let us correct it now when setting up a new agency. Equally, in those instances where Members are informed that operational day to day matters are the responsibility of the service provider, we should put our heads together to ensure a satis factory mechanism is put in place to provide an adequate response.

It is vital that these service providers are asked to establish a user council type group. This should occur on a regional basis to accommodate Members and allow us to raise a regional issue or express a view, similar to views raised by several speakers today, on an annual or biannual basis either to the Department or agencies operating under its auspices. Nowadays, there is usually unanimity among Members and public representatives making representations on behalf of a group of constituents on the provision of services.

Due to time constraints, I will not be able to focus on several issues. I have been party to a huge body of research undertaken on service provision in my constituency of Dublin North-Central. I express my appreciation for the work of the staff of the Department of Public Enterprise, Iarnród Éireann, Bus Átha Cliath and the Minister in particular.

I note none of the Members present is from the Dublin region, where the greater Dublin transportation initiative is being undertaken. It involves an immense amount of work, most of which is dead, in other words, its benefits are not yet tangible. I understand that the benefits of the tremendous investment under way, will be tangible from the year 2003 when the Luas, the metros, the Dublin port tunnel, integrated ticketing and many other initiatives come on stream. I wish all involved continued success. We are monitoring developments closely. I welcome the Bill. It will improve our infrastructure and, I hope, encourage private public partnership.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tuigim go bhfuil an Bille seo os ár gcomhair chun feabhais a chur ar an gcóras sa todhchaí ach chuala mé Teachtaí ag caint inniu faoin gcóras atá ann faoi láthair. Bhí daoine acu ag moladh agus daoine acu ag gearáin agus leanfaidh mise ar an tslí céanna, ag moladh agus ag gearáin.

When I heard Deputy Donal Carey refer to the West Clare Railway, it convinced me I am approaching the fossil stage. I admit that in my youth I heard and saw the West Clare Railway arrive and leave Cragaknock station, which was not far from my home. I am pleased the carriages are performing so well in India transporting thousands of people on the narrow gauge line. The reference to the narrow gauge railway reminded me that the Carlow to Dublin line was a double line until several years after the foundation of the State. That double line continues today from Cherryfield through Kildare into Dublin. Reopening the second line from Dublin to Carlow could make a big difference to the existing service.

I have requested the extension of the Arrow system to include Carlow. This does not necess arily mean running the same number of trains provided closer to Dublin. However, the provision of a more regular service between Carlow and Dublin is required. At present, a train departs at 6.30 a.m. from Carlow. That is an excellent time, but it is too early for people who do not need to be in Dublin at 8.00 a.m. The next Dublin bound train leaves at 9.00 a.m. which is too late for people working in Dublin. Many people have bought houses in Carlow to commute to Dublin. It would be better to encourage people off the roads. I, therefore, ask the officials to consider reopening the second line from Carlow to Cherryfield to allow more trains to run.

My colleague, Deputy Owen, has been fighting bravely for her constituents to get a better inward bound morning train service through Donabate and Malahide. I have been informed of several reasons this train service is a danger to the public. It should carry a health warning for passengers. The train now leaves from Dundalk rather than Drogheda and is crammed full by the time it reaches Donabate, which means people have to force themselves on board.

I have heard several reports about this line which would be funny were they not so serious. People are boarding the train backwards because it helps avoid getting caught in the closing doors. I am informed that a girl who normally has her feet firmly on the ground travelled several miles without her feet touching the floor because she was caught between several men. In another case, a schoolboy carrying a satchel on his back was asked to take it off and hold it over his head to allow another passenger to board the train. What is happening with the service? Where are the health and safety regulations? If one of these full trains was suddenly forced to stop, what would happen to all those passengers squeezed in like sardines, swaying to and fro in a motion similar to the domino effect?

I realise Deputy Owen is fighting a battle on this matter. We, obviously, need extra carriages. It may not be possible to get them overnight, but there is something wrong with a system that did not anticipate the need for extra carriages. I will not be smart or claim 20/20 vision or ciall cheannaithe, but it is absurd that a person could leave home with a full set of teeth and arrive in the city centre with front teeth missing because a fellow passenger has fallen on top of him or her. Recently, someone tripped over another passenger's plaster cast. Why is something not being done for the safety of passengers using the train service at Donabate? One can imagine the effect of trying to board an already crammed train in Malahide. RTE, instead of trying to create comedy programmes, should film people having to push to get on these trains. They would have a ready made programme which might get something done and even provide amusement for people in Wicklow.

Top
Share