I wish to share time with Deputies Eamon Ryan and Healy.
Licensing of Indoor Events Bill, 2001: Referral to Select Committee. - Railway Safety Bill 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill before the House. We are fortunate that it has been a long time since the last serious rail disaster, at Cherryville Junction in 1983, where seven passengers lost their lives. However, deaths still occur on Irish rail lines. Just four months ago, at Woodfarm in County Limerick, a fatal accident occurred at a manual rail crossing. This is just one of over 150 accidents at rail crossings since January 1998. Sinn Féin believes that the primary public interest in rail travel is that the highest possible safety standards should be adhered to. Irish citizens, passengers and workers alike deserve no less on Irish railways. I welcome the decision to set up the Railway Safety Commission independently of both larnród Éireann and the Minister's Department. With even the best of intentions, there is a contradiction between safety and profit. Regardless of whether the temptation to put commercial interests before safety is acted upon, it is always there. It has been a sad feature of transport privatisations in other countries that cutbacks in safety are often targeted by companies concerned primarily with profit.
In Britain, the inquiry into the Paddington rail disaster, in which 30 people lost their lives, recommended that the operating company, Railtrack, be stripped of its responsibility for setting safety standards for train operators. Instead. a new independent safety body was proposed to set safety standards and monitor the rail industry's safety performance. The inquiry into this tragedy recognised that the demand to maximise profits involved the sacrifice of safety. Commercial considerations should not be allowed to compromise safety and I welcome the setting up of a commission which can be guaranteed to put the safety of the passengers and the employees before profit or cost cutting. The commission will replace the railway inspectors office and will have a much wider breadth of responsibilities.
For example, the new commission will have power to intervene in railway operations that violate the agreed safety case. It will have wide powers of investigation and enforcement of safety regulations and the Bill also provides for the setting up of a tribunal of inquiry by the Minister in consultation with the commission. These changes and others are a vast improvement over the somewhat limited powers that were available to the railway inspector's office. Another welcome feature is the fact that the commission will be properly staffed and maintained to allow it to fulfil its remit.
It is clear that the previous system was wholly inadequate. In 1996, International Risk Management Services, IRMS, was commissioned to review the safety procedures in operation on the State's railways. The IRMS report, published in 1998, pointed to what it described as 22 "unreasonable risks", defined as aspects of the rail infrastructure, systems or processes that either posed an immediate risk of fatality or injury or fell short of best practice. Despite this, a review of that report found that while four of these "unreasonable risks" had been dealt with, a further 11 had come to light in the meantime. With safety standards of such breathtaking inadequacy, it is legitimate to ask why it has taken the Government so long to bring adequate legislation before the House. An independent railway safety commission will ensure that commercial interests will not be allowed to interfere with the objective of making sure that rail travel is as safe as possible.
While the Bill is generally welcome, elements of it need attention. In particular, section 87 provides for the imposition of random sampling of workers employed by the rail companies. I note that the types of employees subject to this kind of testing are restricted to those who work in certain capacities deemed to be high risk areas and that the procedures for testing are to be drawn up in consultation with the Unions. However, I remain concerned about the extension of the powers to carry out random drug and alcohol tests on employees. The Bill allows for the sampling of persons working for the company if there is a suspicion they are intoxicated or if, following an incident, there is a suspicion of someone involved being intoxicated at the time. While I welcome these parts of the Bill, it goes on to permit the random testing of staff.
Random drug and alcohol testing should only be undertaken in the most extreme circumstances, given that the experience can be degrading and humiliating. The benefits of random testing have never been conclusively proved either as a deterrent or a method of discovering which employees are using intoxicants. It is a violation of the rights of workers and their dignity. Without concrete, comprehensive evidence to prove its worth I would ask the Minister to revisit the issue of giving railway companies such wide-ranging powers. These are open to abuse in the form of harassment of workers if used improperly, particularly considering the sometimes poisonous atmosphere and lack of trust between management and workers in Iarnród Éireann.
I would be more worried about fatigue suffered by train drivers and similar staff. There have been a number of occasions, well documented to the Minister, where drivers, in particular, have complained about being made to work shifts of up to 18 hours. The Minister should recommend to the commission, upon its formation, that this issue be addressed as a matter of urgency.
I hope this legislation will address other issues of paramount importance regarding safety. Anyone who travels on trains is familiar with the problems of overcrowding. Passengers on Intercity rail often have to pick their way over passengers forced to sit on the floor and around overflowing luggage bins. Decades of Government failure to invest in Irish rail networks mean that people are crammed on to trains like cattle for export. In the event of a serious accident the dangers for passengers are all too clear.
There is a particular danger for those rail passengers who are disabled or wheelchair bound. They are still on occasion forced to travel in the mail van as there are no proper facilities for them on some of the older train models. One can only imagine the horror of someone with a serious mobility problem stuck in a mail van in the event of a serious accident or train crash. I hope the Minister ensures that special attention is paid by the Railway Safety Commission to the particular plight of this group of passengers. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the current rail fleet is upgraded so that the special needs of disabled people are met.
The Railway Advisory Council is another positive element in this Bill. I applaud especially the decision to appoint representatives from the public and organisations representing the interests of mobility-impaired persons. I find it somewhat troubling, however, that there is a discrepancy in the representation rights of management and workers on this council. Under section 79(3) of the Bill membership of the council includes "at least four persons representing railway undertakings" and "at least three persons from organisations which represent staff of railway undertakings" I ask the Minister to consider altering the legislation to ensure that unions and management have equal right to representation on the Railway Advisory Council. I further ask him to ensure that every effort is made in consultation with all unions in Iarnród Éireann to ensure the widest possible representation of workers and that, in as much as it is possible, no group of workers are left without representation on the advisory council.
I hope the Minister will take notice of the issues I have raised concerning this legislation. I request that he does his utmost, despite the heavy legislative schedule before the House, to move the Bill rapidly through its remaining Stages.
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Railway Safety Bill, 2001. The Government and Governments for the past 20 or 30 years have got the wrong end of the stick on rail safety. When it comes to transport safety, railways are the safest form. They always have been, and CIE, in fairness to it, has a reasonably good record on rail safety. The Government's investment in the railway system, by contrast, has been nothing short of disgraceful. If safety is the consideration in transport issues why have we pumped twice or three times the amount of money into a road-based system over the past 30 years? We know that the death rate on roads far exceeds that on the railway, which is a safe transport system by comparison.
We listened earlier to the debate on the Licensing of Indoor Events Bill, 2001, and the risks to young people of incidents such as, for example, the terrible accident which occurred in the Stardust. I thought, as I listened to the contributions, that we have the equivalent number of deaths on our roads every month or two and we do nothing about it. The Government insists on pumping more money into the road system while effectively dismantling the rail system. My colleague, Deputy Naughten, raised the matter of the slow speeds in certain sections of the rail system. The point was made earlier that all the Government is doing about rail safety is abolishing the system. We will not have a railway system in a few years if the Government continues on its way, and that would be much more dangerous. There will be nobody on the railways but there will be more people on the roads and the result will be carnage on the roads. The Government has completely missed the truth of how to make transport safe.
I have been involved in transport campaigns for years. As a cycling campaigner, I have become more and more impressed with railway engineers because of the complexity of the system. It is very different from other modes of transport. When compared to road transport, the railway system is a very complex system, with different engineering requirements. Engineers have moved from waterway systems of transport to road systems and from cars to buses, and made the switch fairly simply, but they do not seem to be able to make the switch to the rail system because it is different and complex.
The controversy about the signalling system in terms of the contract involving Esat showed how complex that system is. It was difficult for Iarnród Éireann to get the system right. It has failed to provide a signalling system for the capital. The best way to improve public transport in the city centre is to concentrate on railways, but that is beyond CIE's current capabilities. They have to postpone the project to 2008. That is a safety issue because signalling is at the core of safety. The Government seems happy with that position. A new signalling system was promised four or five years ago but nothing has been done. The year 2008 is six years away and who really cares?
Rail safety is very complex. During the last main rail dispute with ILDA one of the key arguments was about safety. There was no clear agreement. Experts were brought in from different international rail bodies who disagreed on whether work practices were safe. It is difficult and complex to decide what is safe. The commission will have a valuable function in providing an independent analysis of safe practices.
People with experience of rail services will be needed on any such commission. I understand from discussions with people in the rail business that there is a world of difference between a light rail system and a heavy rail system. A system like the Luas which runs along O'Connell Street or St. Stephen's Green has completely different safety requirements than a mainline rail service with trains travelling at 70 miles per hour. We do not have experience in light rail and we will need to learn about it. I do not know where the commission will acquire the expertise because it does not exist in Ireland. In Holland and in cities like Copenhagen and Sheffield which have light rail, there is an awareness of safety issues. We must take into account that people could be knocked down by crossing inadvertently in front of a tram. The engineering and safety expertise will have to be found initially outside the State because it is not available here.
I am concerned that the Bill is long overdue. There is a procurement agency working on the metro system. The Luas system is being constructed. We charge in after the building is complete to say that there is a body which will tell us how to make the system safe. We have effectively designed the system, or employed overseas contractors to do so, and we are tacking safety considerations on afterwards. The commission will find that very difficult because the negotiations are over. I hope the negotiations have been completed in terms of the metro, although I doubt it given the Government's lack of commitment to public transport. It has probably gone the way of every other public transport project that has been promised. The problem we face as regards safety is that we are tacking it on afterwards. I would love to hear the Minister for Transport explain how he intends to retrospectively fit safety into the design of the new systems that are being put in place, as it is a difficult thing to do.
When the Minister introduced this Bill, he asked for opinions about drug testing. I share the views of my colleague, Deputy Crowe, in so far as I am very wary of random drug testing in case it might be seen to impinge on civil liberties. I am not too sure if the benefits of random drug testing have been proven. I am happy enough to see drug testing for those who are carrying out particularly sensitive jobs, but I would be reluctant to introduce random drug or alcohol tests on a general basis. I do not have a definite view on the matter, but my instinct would be to oppose such a provision as I am uncomfortable about some of the implications for civil liberties.
When I examined international safety models, I became very interested in a Swedish road safety policy that epitomises a general safety policy that could be adopted here. It seems we often look to Scandinavia for examples of best practice, but the Swedish aim of zero deaths on the roads would be a good target for the Irish transport systems. Everything is meticulously planned in Sweden with the aim of zero deaths in mind. All other provisions trickle down from the overall principle. The Government's transport policy should prioritise a rail-based system, which would require the type of massive investment currently being provided for the roads. The National Roads Authority has admitted that many of the motorways being built at present are not needed.
Iarnród Éireann will be called Iarnród Átha Cliath in a few years' time, as the only rail lines in the country will be those serving Dublin. When the Minister is happy that he has shut down the unprofitable lines, juggernauts will plough through our towns and cities, creating huge environmental damage and killing many people. As I have said on previous occasions, a number of people equivalent to the number of casualties of the Stardust fire die on our roads each month and, as in the Stardust tragedy, most of the victims are young people. We will look back and ask why we did not invest in our railway system, why commuter services to Galway, Cork and Limerick from neighbouring towns were not established and why a complex variety of rail services was not put in place. It is perfectly possible to establish safety mechanisms after such investment has taken place and the commission being established in this Bill is a step in the right direction in that regard. I would love to be proven wrong, but I have no faith in the Government's ability to develop efficient public transport systems.
I welcome the Railway Safety Bill, 2001, which is long overdue. While the Irish railways have a reasonable safety record, there has been a number of incidents in recent years. It has been mentioned in the House that a lady lost her life at a level crossing in County Limerick, close to my constituency, earlier this year.
I wish to focus initially on the need for safety issues, which are addressed in this Bill, to relate to the need for disabled persons to be properly accommodated on our rail network. Before this year's general election, the Disability Federation of Ireland wrote to all the political parties and election candidates to set out its demands for inclusion in the programme for Government. The federation said:
We need bold and radical action, supported by major improvements and sustained investment, to ensure that people with disabilities and their families catch up and are at a point where they can equally participate in Irish society. This is about investment in people with disabilities and not about the costs. It is about enhancing the lives and capacity of Irish people with disabilities and their families and it is done primarily through the employment of other people in the community. Health and personal social services are a necessary part of the national infrastructure which supports and enhances the further development of economic activity.
An Agreed Programme for Government, produced by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, stated:
Unprecedented opportunity has been given, uniquely to us in this generation. It is the opportunity to build a fair society of equal opportunity and of sustained prosperity on an island at peace with itself. We aim to be an inclusive society but there are those who still remain left out. We are committed to building service provision and legislative frameworks which enable people with disabilities to fulfil their potential and make a full contribution to the economic and social life of our country.
I hope resources will be made available as a result of this Bill to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to use our rail system to the fullest extent. Significant funding will have to be extended to the rail system to ensure that it is accessible to persons with disabilities. We cannot allow the situation to continue which has pertained in the recent past whereby persons using wheelchairs have to travel in storage carriages or in other forms of transport attached to carriages. Iarnród Éireann's rolling stock must be updated and made accessible to persons with disabilities. Until recently, carriages dating from the 1950s and 1960s were used as rolling stock and carriages that are over 30 years old, which are not accessible to persons with disabilities, are still in use. This must be addressed immediately by the Railway Safety Bill in an effective manner.
The question of funding is a huge one. We need continuous welded rail, level crossings of reasonable standards of safety and additional carriages so that our trains are no longer overcrowded. Rail stations must be updated to modern standards and made accessible to those who use wheelchairs. Railway lines must be properly fenced off so that young, and not so young, people cannot get on to the track. This has been a major safety issue in recent times as fatalities have occurred when people have been struck by passing trains having freely walked on to open lines. I know that some fencing has been undertaken in recent years, but we need to ensure that all our lines are properly secured and that public access is prevented. A number of accidents have also been caused by animals wandering on to railway lines.
I welcome the establishment of the Railway Safety Commission, which is independent from the Department of Transport and Iarnród Éireann. Similarly, the creation of a Railway Advisory Council is a welcome development. As Deputy Eamon Ryan said, however, the funding of the road network on a priority basis is an important issue which is related to this Bill. The importance of this issue can be seen in practical terms in the current debate about the discontinuation of rail freight services. The underfunding of our railway service over many years has caused the current difficulties. We will see the effect of this when a huge amount of freight is transferred on to our dangerous roads from a railway system which is reasonably safe at present. Unfortunately, large numbers of people die on our roads on an ongoing basis.
Iarnród Éireann proposes to transfer onto the road system the contents of 11 keg trains per day, Monday to Friday, three trains per day from Tara Mines, Monday to Friday, three trains per day carrying shale, Monday to Friday, five beet trains per day, Monday to Saturday, from October to December, 11 liner trains per day, Monday to Friday, one palletised cement train per day, Monday to Friday, 26 bulk cement trains per week and two SOI trains per week. This is a transfer of huge economic activity from the rail to the road network, which is totally inadequate and leads to safety concerns.
The current SOI train which leaves the North Wall depot for Sligo will be replaced by 75 road tankers carrying the same quantity of oil. The Guinness keg consignment will now be hauled by road from Dublin to rail depots in Galway, Ballina, Claremorris and Cork for unloading by rail staff. Some 100 lorries, working seven days per week, will be required to transfer the beet crop from Wellington Bridge to Mallow. The same scenario will be repeated, and multiplied, with the remainder of rail freight traffic being carried by road. The Government's transport policy must be looked at to ensure the continuation of rail freight services. The same considerations arise, including from a safety point of view, in regard to the proposed closure by Iarnród Éireann of the railway lines between Limerick Junction and Rosslare and Limerick and Ballybrophy.
The other issue which arises in relation to the Bill is that of profit and the privatisation of services. This has been referred to in recent times. The Bill will, to some extent, create a situation whereby safety on the rail system will be put on an independent and reasonable footing. It will ensure an independent commission will police the system. The privatisation of rail services in Britain in recent years has led to serious accidents involving loss of life and serious injury.
I welcome the Bill, even though some sections will need to be fleshed out on Committee Stage. Generally, I welcome the proposed appointment of the independent commission and the rail safety advisory council. I have serious concerns in regard to Iarnród Éireann's current policy to discontinue freight services and close certain lines.
I welcome this debate which is somewhat overdue. I am conscious of the fact that we are addressing just one aspect of rail services, even though safety is very important. We are talking about rail services in isolation from other developments, which is very difficult. That is the reason I have concerns about the general approach shown to date by the Minister in respect of his portfolio.
There has been massive development in recent years and the big difficulty is that it has happened in a completely unplanned and incoherent manner. This has now resulted in a very heavy concentration of development on the east coast while many rural areas are suffering serious decline. In other words, no one at Government level sat down in recent years to attempt to direct development which has happened in a very haphazard way which has proven to be unsustainable from a number of points of view. This development has led to the diminution of the quality of life for many citizens, whether in the overcrowded capital city, towns on the east coast or rundown and abandoned towns and villages in the west. The result is that people are increasingly spending large portions of their day trying to commute on a transport system which is wholly inadequate, has not been properly planned and very much geared towards car users.
The bottom line is that we are now suffering from the absence of any kind of spatial planning. For many years the Government has been promising a proper spatial plan. I understand from media reports one is due to be announced very soon, but it is several years too late as a huge amount of development has already taken place which it is too late to direct. That type of planning was needed ten or 15 years ago. We need spatial planning and a clear commitment from Government to ensure transport services are used as a means of achieving social good. Regrettably, what we have seen from the current Minister and his predecessor is an ideological attitude towards public transport which treats public transport and many other public services as merely a function of the market, where the market dictates the level, location and quality of the service. I fear this ideological and skewed view of the world in relation to public transport is probably more pronounced in the case of the Minister than his predecessor. Public transport, including railways, must be seen as an integral part of social infrastructure and a major tool in assisting even-spread development and growth.
I hope the spatial plan will include a major section relating to the role of public transport in achieving social objectives which can be achieved through logical and committed promotion of good transport systems. Well planned and resourced transport systems will enable us to achieve a whole range of objectives within the State. There is a need for a positive attitude to public transport. In recent years, in the light of the strength of the car and roads lobbies, both have taken precedence over any commitment to public transport. This has resulted in unsustainable development. I hope the Government, in particular the Minister, will see the development of public transport as a means of ensuring even-spread development, ensuring access for everyone, irrespective of their geographical location or social class, in terms of work, retail possibilities or recreation.
There are other concerns, however, apart from access and development, including environmental issues. Clear decisions have been taken to favour road developments and the car lobby rather than public transport and these have had an environmental price. One need only go out to any street in the centre of Dublin and measure the levels of toxins in the air to see the results of traffic congestion. There are means of dealing with this, which entail a commitment to public transport to serve and link our cities and rural towns.
There are also safety concerns. I concur with many of the points made by Deputy Ryan: if we are serious about safety, rail, or any form of public transport, is far safer than a private motor car. For that reason alone I would like to see the emphasis switching from roads to a strong commitment to and promotion of public transport. In recent months the Minister has adopted a scattergun approach. He has been flitting around like a bird, landing on different issues that happen to be topical on a certain day and making public announcements about them. I wonder why he is not present for today's debate. It has been two whole days since he made any announcement. He is probably out speaking to the media again.
He is not feeling well.
He has certainly been very active in the media, landing on issues and giving responses off the top of his head without any regard for any previous thinking in the area or the authorities with responsibility in those areas and clearly without any overall strategy. He has certainly created many hostages to fortune in recent months and Deputy Naughten and I look forward to holding him to account. He has made many announcements with no clear indication of proposals for their implementation or any timescale. In spite of all the public announcements, press statements and so on, he has given no indication of whether he has any strategy in effective transport. I would like to hear his vision for public transport, including the railways. I am not sure that there is any. It would be helpful for everyone if he made an opportunity for teasing out his thinking, if he has started to think about it at all.
It is very important that a Minister for Transport has a very clear vision about what can be achieved in the sector of good quality public transport. The Minister should be clearly seen to be a strong advocate of the principle of reliable, efficient and safe countrywide transport systems. He should have ambition for the potential of public transport. To date there has been no evidence of this. That vision is definitely needed at the top level of decision making and also needed within the service providers.
Over many years there has been a distinct lack of vision within CIE companies. This was clearly influenced by political interference and inertia, but we now need Iarnród Éireann – formerly CIE – to develop a vision for the positive provision of public transport and recognise the enormous role played by public transport in terms of providing for sustainable development and adding significantly to the quality of people's lives. If the service providers are to take this kind of proactive, positive approach, there must be a very clear commitment from Government to provide for adequate and ongoing investment in order to secure the social good, which can be achieved through efficient public transport.
Given the lack of vision for railways in recent decades, it is not surprising that the state of the railways went into such decline. The IRMS consultants' report on the 1997 derailment found that safety weaknesses were endemic in both the hardware and software of the railways. Furthermore, the consultants found a decaying infrastructure, loss of middle management who had any kind of knowledge of the system, relative lack of safety training, weak safety systems, low morale among the staff, poor communication systems and weak safety audits. To some extent, decision makers were seen to come to the conclusion that this situation could not be allowed to continue. Public concern about safety and the consultants' report, which highlighted graphically serious problems, forced a rethink in relation to investment in hardware and safety measures.
In Iarnród Éireann we have seen that where the Government of the day was prepared to make a financial commitment to the company, it had the capacity to measure up to the confidence being placed in it. To be fair to management and staff in Iarnród Éireann, since money has become available for improvements in recent years there has been an extraordinary improvement in safety within the company. The IRMS report containing that damning assessment of safety was issued in 1998 and just a few years later in July 2001, the report of the Minister's review group on the railways, Iarnród Éireann – The Way Forward, found a drastic change in the culture within the company. It states, "There is a high level of safety consciousness and commitment to best safety practice in IE." It recognised that the company had responded to the injection of funding in the areas of hardware and software and went on to state:
The Review Group was struck by the very frequent mention of safety, indicating a serious dedication to safety as the expressed number one core value of the company. Progress in developing a safety culture has been acknowledged by the IMRS safety report. We accept that safety has the highest priority with all levels of staff throughout the company. The recent staff attitude survey results confirm this view.
There was a very dramatic change in the space of a few years when Government began to place confidence in the company and started to put its money where its mouth was. Obviously, more needs to be done, but once the investment programme started the company did respond positively and there have been major improvements in safety.
It is generally accepted that the existing statutory framework for regulating rail safety is completely inadequate and outdated. The Bill proposes to address these inadequacies by introducing a modern framework. There has been much media and political interest in rail safety which tends to arise in the immediate aftermath of railway incidents or accidents. In addition, events over the past two years in the United Kingdom have raised general interest in rail safety. The railway accidents in 2000, 2001 and May 2002, which resulted in numerous fatalities, have had a major impact on the operation of railways in the United Kingdom and caused much political and organisational fallout. These events were widely reported in the media here, which helped to focus attention on this area. The general scheme of the Bill was subject to a public consultation process in the spring of last year, the responses to which indicated very little opposition to its general thrust and principles from most of the parties in the sector.
I am concerned by the length of time it took to start the debate on this legislation, as the issue is so pressing. The Bill had its origins in the IRMS report on the derailment published in October 1998. Therefore, it is now four years since the recommendations on which the Bill is based were made. That four year delay seems extraordinary. The Bill was presented to the Dáil 12 months ago and, despite being on the Government's priority list, not taken during the last Dáil. The debate has now begun four years on. I hope the slow progress to date of the legislation is not repeated in its passage through the Oireachtas. The Minister will be given every co-operation to deal with it as speedily as possible.
The Bill puts in place a new regulatory framework for rail safety which will apply to all railways to which the public has access, including the Iarnród Éireann network, light rail, the metro and heritage railways. It will also apply to those aspects of industrial railways which have an interface with the public road or rail networks. Why are freight services not fully covered by the Bill? As I do not understand the rationale for this, perhaps the Minister will outline the thinking behind it.
The principal feature of the Bill is the setting up of the independent railway safety commission to regulate rail safety in Ireland. The new commission will have wide-ranging powers of inspection, enforcement and accident investigation. Placing the primary duty of care on railway undertakings to ensure the safety of persons in the operation of their railways is a key feature of the Bill. In order to comply with that duty of care, railway undertakings will be required to implement formal safety management systems and describe their systems in a document called, A Safety Case – the placing of a duty on all staff of railway companies and other persons carrying out an activity on or near a railway not to endanger people using the railway. Road authorities and railway undertakings will be required to consult each other in cases where new works by one party have safety implications for the operation of the other. The Bill also sets up a consultative body, the railway safety advisory council, the membership of which will be drawn from representatives of the railway industry, rail unions, the safety commission and other bodies.
While there is general support for the principles of this legislation, I have concerns about a number of areas to which I hope the Minister will respond. Regarding inquiries to be carried out by the commission and representation at them, the Bill provides for inquiries to be made into both incidents and accidents. In at least three sections there are provisions whereby admissions made in the course of an inquiry cannot be used in subsequent legal or other proceedings. This obviously indicates the complexity of the process concerned. However, there is no provision allowing for representation at inquiries. If that is the case, it weakens the process as denial of representation would obviously constitute an infringement of the right of citizens under the rules of natural justice. A provision or provisions allowing representation at inquiries would clearly strengthen the inquiry process. The Minister should outline his plans in this regard.
Regarding random intoxicant testing, rail workers have always operated in an environment of low tolerance for alcohol abuse. It is to everyone's credit that alcohol has not figured as a contributory factor in any rail accident in the last 30 years. It is generally accepted that there is a need to continue this strict regime and its adaptation to other drugs which, although illegal, are in widespread circulation. While the Bill sets out an approach, there are questions about its acceptability, given the provisions for random testing. It could be the case – I would like to hear the Minister's legal advice on this – that the provisions may be unconstitutional. The provisions in the Bill are arguably the result of advice from the IRMS which, while technically excellent in other respects, seems unable to cope with the different situation in this area caused by the Con stitution. Section 85 formalises what was already the case and provides for a regime similar to that applying to road users under the Road Traffic Acts. This similarity should be made explicit. Section 1 is rather tortuously worded and the role of unions envisaged in the section might best be made explicit. The Minister should consider this.
Section 87(c) provides for the administration of intoxicant tests at random. While I fully support the desired outcome, we cannot accept that railway workers should have a lesser level of basic rights than other citizens. Recent experience in the Supreme Court should show us that the basic constitutional rights of the citizen cannot be restricted, irrespective of how socially desirable the objective of the legislation is. There is no other group of workers to whom random intoxicant tests apply. If this is a change, there is no doubt that the constitutionality of the section will ultimately be tested by the Supreme Court. It would be helpful, therefore, if, on Committee Stage, the Minister could produce the legal advice from the Attorney General's office on the constitutionality of such random testing. It seems that if this were constitutionally permissible, the Attorney General's office would have sought to introduce an element of random testing in the Road Traffic Acts in order to curb the spread of drink driving. Clearly, there were constitutional obstacles to doing so; how are those obstacles to be overcome in relation to this legislation?
The remit of the commission is set out very clearly in the legislation regarding tracks and embankments, the need to make all bridges and level crossings safe and so on. What is not clear is the extent to which it has a remit regarding overcrowding on trains. Anyone who has taken the Intercity train any time on a Friday is well aware of the sardine-like conditions on many of our train services which is a clear threat to public safety. I am not sure of the commission's remit in that regard. Also, what is its remit regarding the safety of those with a disability? Can it dictate policy to Iarnród Éireann or other companies regarding ticketing policy, the need to prebook or the need to make specific provision for those in wheelchairs? The Minister should tease this out.
I am surprised the commission is not required to produce an annual report. Section 32 states it may produce a report to the Minister, but surely if one has such an important public body, it should be required to produce an annual or biannual report. There should be a clear legal requirement on it to do so.
Regarding the railway safety council, it is a good idea to have a consultative group established, though I am concerned by the appointment system. It seems the Minister has the right to appoint every one of the 14 members. Most appointment procedures in recent years have recognised the need to ask different sectors to make nominations. The legislation states organisations representing those with disabilities may make a nomination and the Minister may have regard to it, but he or she is not required to accept it. It is a mendacious way to do business; we should ask organisations to nominate rather than have the Minister hand-pick individuals which in the past has resulted in State bodies being packed with political lackeys who do not have any particular expertise.
There is provision for someone to represent the public interest, but there are two separate definitions of the public interest in this area. There is an overall public interest and also that of the travelling passenger. It is essential at least one person on the authority is a regular commuter. Often those in decision making positions, whether in the Department of Transport or among Members of the Oireachtas, rarely use public transport. It would be a good exercise if we were forced to use it on a regular basis. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will consider withdrawing or taxing the free parking facilities for Members, forcing us to use public transport and experience, as other members of the public do, the shortcomings and inadequacies of the system.
There should be a limit to the term of office of members of the council. Initially they are appointed for a three year term, but a person can be reappointed time and again which is bad practice.
I am concerned, in view of the slow movement of this legislation, about its commencement. We might pass the Bill, but commencement may not begin for some time after its passage. The Minister could leave it on the long finger which is unacceptable. There should be a time constraint for commencement of within three months of enactment of the Bill.
The IRMS noted in its 2001 report that the delay in the provision of the mini-CTC signalling system on the Maynooth-Sligo, Athy-Waterford, Tralee-Banteer and Ballinasloe-Galway lines had a severe effect on the ability of Iarnród Éireann to maintain signalling on the affected routes. In the light of these conclusions the Minister commissioned the IRMS to review a high level strategy paper from Iarnród Éireann setting out a safety action plan pending implementation of the mini-CTC project. Its findings and the implications of the delay in the implementation of the mini-CTC project were published in August 2001. The response from the Government is still awaited. The Minister should comment on it now and make it available to those of us who would like to read it. There are clear implications for rail safety. The area requires urgent attention.
I was musing today that it was only 160 days since I was elected and this would be my first opportunity to speak on a debate in the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward. I wish him well in his role and support his future efforts.
It might be surprising that a Deputy from the constituency of Dublin South West might want to speak on a Bill concerning the rail network when there are no trains that run to Tallaght. While I was preparing my contribution, however, I was conscious that we had been lucky not to have experienced a major rail disaster on the scale of the incidents that have occurred in Britain. Three years ago, I was recovering from surgery during the week of a terrible train disaster in London. Because I had nothing else to do except rest, I spent a lot of time watching Sky News. It had an effect on me at the time because it was a very sad event and television can be intrusive when covering disasters of that nature.
Reading the review of rail safety in Ireland, carried out on behalf of the old Department of Public Enterprise, I was dismayed to see the level of difficulty Iarnród Éireann had with safety on its rail network. I was also shocked to read that a year after the review, a follow up report confirmed that only a small number of previous safety issues had been resolved and that, in the meantime, further difficulties had been identified. With such a background, the introduction of this framework for rail safety is both urgent and overdue. We are aware of the investment in the rail network in recent years with the support of the national development plan and all know the shambles that is the signalling system was the subject of an inquiry by a committee of this House.
I welcome the establishment of the railway safety commission and the fact that its remit will cover the entire rail network, including the Luas system. The safety of that new network, given the more open access to the areas over which it travels, is essential. The public must also be made aware of their responsibilities.
I represent Dublin South West, which includes Tallaght, the third largest population centre in the State. I am glad that a large section of the Luas line is in my constituency, but want to restate my amazement that Luas, when it travels from the city centre to Tallaght, will terminate at The Square. Who made the decision to go no further than The Square and deny direct access to Luas to over 30,000 people in the Old Bawn and west Tallaght estates? Those Members who know west Tallaght are aware that there is not a high level of car ownership in the area. There are also many job opportunities further out in City West. There is, therefore, a demand for the line to go that far.
When Luas comes to Tallaght, it will be of great benefit to the area and its people and I look forward to using it. Since I was elected I have travelled on occasion by bus from Tallaght, and while I hate having to use my car, that is what I mostly have to do. When Luas comes I look forward to coming into Heuston Station, going on to Connolly Station and walking to Leinster House.
In regard to the development of Luas, extending it in the future will be much more expensive than if it was done now. Many in Dublin South West – Tallaght, Firhouse, Greenhills and Templeogue – feel let down by the decision thus far with regard to extending it to Tallaght.
The provisions of the Bill are extensive and I intend to comment on just a few of them. In regard to the make-up of the commission, I have no difficulty in supporting the appointment of up to three members. Using the specialist knowledge required, up to 12 years service, seems reasonable. Given that the current chief railway inspecting officer with the Department will be a commissioner, I hope the work of the commission, more importantly its results, will be more evident than the response by Íarnród Éireann to its requirements while within the Department. It is vital that the commission has the best talent available to it to carry out its work and, when establilshing the commission, the Minister briefs its members with the words, "Take no prisoners, peoples' lives are at stake."
On the section which permits the commission to engage consultants and advisers, I recommend, where possible, that these experts be recruited as a last resort, not as an excuse to have a difficult decision sidetracked or as a substitute for internal abilities and expertise. Given the size of the rail market, I support the section on conflicts of interest and the declarations required. An area of potential future difficulty has been closed.
I note that the Bill allows for a levy to be imposed on rail network operators and that this levy cannot be imposed before December 2004. The commission should be funded by rail operators and at a future date its costs and work level should become a sub-cost of the expenditure on safety made by operators of rail networks. For example, if a statutory percentage of total operators' income is to be spent on safety, then the levy should be part of this percentage. I welcome the fact that the commission will participate in the strategic management initiative process from day one with the publication of a statement and the use of the annual report to provide updates.
I am aware of the need to include general duties of railway undertakings, staff and other persons in the Bill, particularly the section dealing with drugs or alcohol. While not wishing to engage in any industrial relations issues, I am speaking for many of my constituents when I say that for the safety of all of us we cannot allow operators lenient in this area to remain.
I mentioned earlier – I was not being flippant – given that there is no train service in Tallaght or in my constituency, some might be surprised that people talk to me about rail safety. As Deputy Shortall mentioned, we all travel at one time or another, as do many of my constituents. Even though Tallaght is a great place, there are many other places in the country to which people travel by train and people do talk to us about safety.
On the issue of safety management systems and the safety case, I read with great interest the areas covered by the relevant section, the aims of which I support. I express my future support for the commission should it ever – I hope it does not – find itself in the position of serving notice on an operator. That operators could find themselves unable to provide the public with a service would clearly be their fault and the commission would act in the public interest. Some of the periods allowed for in responding to notices are too lenient. When a full notice has been issued, the operator should cease operations imediately and take its appeal to the courts to have the notice lifted, bearing in mind that peoples' lives are at risk.
What the public needs to see in rail safety is new rolling stock, not 40 or 50 passengers who have paid for their tickets sitting between carriages or hiking up two carriages to get to the platform. In the case of many DART and commuter services, passengers have to leave home earlier or work later to get into a carriage. While infrastructure is essential, rail safety must also encompass customer service. I look forward to reading the annual reports of the railway safety commission and hearing less complaints about the rail service. That is an ideal to which many Members would subscribe.
In commending the Bill to the House I wish the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, well. I am sure he will be informed of the good wishes extended to him by Deputy Shortall and others. He has a difficult job to do. As he was a Dáil Deputy for parts of my constituency, I have known him and other colleagues for some time. He should be given the opportunity to do the job that many of us want him to do.
I had an unfortunate experience where I was late for a Dáil vote a few weeks ago. Given that there are only a few of us present, I will relate the story. It took me some time to recover because I recall the former Deputy, Mr. Chris Flood, whom I replaced, telling me that whatever else I do over the next five years, never be late for a vote. I was late. In fairness, there was a particularly bad problem with Dublin traffic that morning where the road from Tallaght, through Crumlin and into the Liberties, was blocked due to all sorts of natural happenings. It emphasises the challenge of the Department of Transport in relation to the Minister's remit.
There will be much party politics after 7 p.m. which is fair enough, but at the end of the day we should encourage our Ministers. I am prepared to do so, but feel strongly about the challenge facing the Minister. Apart from party political difficulties, I hope he will have the goodwill of all Members as he tackles it. Let us have proper debate and criticism, when necessary, but let us also be supportive of the Minister as he attempts to tackle something that the public wants him to do, that is, solve the traffic problems, not only in Dublin and the major cities, but also throughout the country.
I appreciate the opportunity I have been given to make these few comments on the Railway Safety Bill which I commend to the House.
I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this important Bill and remind Deputy O'Connor that Fine Gael enthusiastically welcomes it. While there are few issues that are truly about life and death, this is one of them. The Fine Gael transport team is of the view that when it comes to public transport safety of passengers is of the utmost importance. Over the next few years as demands for transport infrastructure grow, safety will rank above all other considerations. It is no State secret that our rail infrastructure is crumbling. Our train services stand alone in Europe as underfunded, undervalued and undermined. Passengers have suffered as a result. While their comfort is important, their safety is pivotal to the future of the railways.
On the train from Limerick this morning we were stopped for five to ten minutes at Inchicore because of works on the line. Earlier in the year in my neighbouring constituency of Limerick one of the more recent accidents in the rail system occurred. Sr. Joan Bowles was killed when her car was struck by a train at a railway crossing near Drumkeen, County Limerick.
The fourth progress report of the cross-departmental team on infrastructure stated in April that safety improvements had been made on 211 level crossings. It is clear, however, that these improvements did not prevent the awful occurrence in Drumkeen. The Minister must ensure such an accident is never allowed to happen again. To do this, proper funding, expertise and attention must be given to making Ireland's rail network world class in terms of safety as well as reliability.
Ireland is lucky that it has been spared the horrors of the rail network in Britain. We have not seen disasters like those that occurred at Selby, Paddington or Hatfield a number of years ago. Last week there was a rail disaster on the TGV in Nancy when 12 people were killed on a train service. We should be thankful that we have not had anything like this, given the state of our railways. The absence of a major disaster in Ireland should not detract from the fact that life and limb are being risked daily. That is the reason this Bill is so important.
The last time the Bill was before the Dáil a number of weeks ago, the Minister alluded to the fact that in March 1999 the Government approved a four year plan and spending amounting to €546 million on a rail safety investment programme. Under the programme, 246 miles of track have been replaced with continuous welded rail track and 371 level crossings made safer or closed off. However, accidents such as the one in Limerick still occur. The sheer scale of what is needed to make our railways safe is obvious.
From my own investigations in this matter it seems that part of the problem lies in the fact that designated railway crossings on railway lines are located at the most dangerous places. Iarnród Éireann has stated the Ennis to Limerick line, in my constituency, will be upgraded in 2003. Work is ongoing and there is only a mid-week bus service which transfers passengers from Ennis to Limerick. There are about 45 crossings for cattle farmers on that line alone, a large number of which are situated close to bends in the railway, denying the farmer a view of sufficient range to protect himself or passengers on the train from the risk of disaster. How many times have animals strayed onto railway lines and been killed by oncoming trains? Given that this is allowed to continue on the railways of County Clare and throughout the country, it is incredible that we have not seen disasters in Ireland such as those that occurred at Selby, Paddington and Hatfield. The Bill, by putting in place a proper regulatory framework for rail safety, will make the possibility of accidents more remote.
The decline of the railways began in the 1940s when the road became king and huge chunks of the rail network were phased out and closed down. That was a reflection on Government policy at the time. This phenomenon has had a massive environmental impact on the country, particularly in terms of the lack of proper freight train systems on the Limerick, Ennis, Athenry, Galway and Sligo lines. There were once many freight trains carrying timber for the State, saving the State the consequences of 20 articulated trucks on the road clogging up traffic, tearing up tarmac and filling the air with exhaust fumes. Needless to say, those freight trains are not running today.
Similarly, there are thousands of commuters who would like to take the train but simply cannot rely on it to get them to their destination on time. Think of all the congestion, the pollution caused by cars that a justified lack of confidence in our rail network causes. The Government needs to invest in the rail network. It needs to rid itself of the misconception that public transport is for ordinary people and that nobody would choose to travel by bus or train if they had a choice. However, if after five years of unprecedented growth due to the economic situation that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats inherited from Fine Gael, the Government has not put the targeted investment needed into our railways, I suppose we cannot expect it to do it at this stage. The Bill does allow us some hope because without a proper safety mechanism in place the expansion and improvement needed to restore our railways to greatness will not come.
Let me turn to the proposed independent railway safety commission. It is amazing that such a commission has not been established before now. The Bill envisages that, among other matters, the commission will be independent in carrying out its functions. Fine Gael wholeheartedly welcomes this provision having seen how, in many other areas, the lack of independent scrutiny has led to an inability or unwillingness to find the truth. The commission is empowered to investigate rail accidents. While we hope it will never have to exercise this function, the Bill at least allows for the truth to be established quickly and fairly.
It is a shocking indictment of Ireland's safety record that as late as 1998 International Risk Management Service which was commissioned to carry out a review of rail safety in Ireland identified multiple examples of unreasonable risk requiring urgent remedial action by Iarnród Éireann. This is a national scandal and an admission that the lives of tens of thousands of rail users were put at risk. This is simply unacceptable. Not to have acted would have been not only inhuman but would also have made a joke of any policy designed to get people out of their cars and onto public transport. Added to the underfunded, poorly maintained, cramped image of our trains, it would have been a killer blow that they were not safe.
It cannot be suggested that the full implementation of the various provisions of the Bill will mean no deaths or accidents on the railways. We can, however, hope it means fewer and that we can solemnly swear that in passing the Bill we have tried our best to limit the loss of life and limb. The Bill marks a turning point in the history of rail transport in Ireland. It establishes an onus on the State, through the commission, to ensure the safety of those coming in contact with the railways, and puts in place the regulatory framework necessary to ensure safety is of paramount concern. On a very basic level it will bring to an end the scandal of unsafe crossings, unsafe stretches of rail, and unsafe practices that pose a major threat to Ireland's rail users. As I stated, what we are talking about today is hypothetical, but we could so easily be discussing a major rail accident in which dozens had lost their lives. The lives of individuals have been lost on railway lines during the years. They may not lodge in our memories, but they do lodge in the memories of their dear ones.
The Bill also serves another purpose. Politicians are often accused of reacting rather than acting, of being led by events rather than dictating them, of following, not pioneering. As an elected representative for County Clare, I can go back to my constituency and tell anyone who accuses this House of this what happened here today. This may not attract column inches of newspaper coverage. In many ways it may not deserve it, but by passing the Bill, Dáil Éireann can say that in this instance it did not take a major disaster or a loss of life before we did something about our railways. It did not take outside pressure. Instead it took a little foresight, a little leadership on all sides of the House to pass these measures. When the history of the railway is written, it will be remembered that 2002 saw the foundations laid for expansion, for it was not only that safety was established on Ireland's rail network, but rather that the future of the railways was established. If we can tell our people that the trains in which they travel are safe, the battle to bring more people onto them can be won.
Debate adjourned.