Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Feb 2003

Vol. 560 No. 5

Railway Safety Bill 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Gilmore

I represent a constituency for which the railway service is extremely important. There are ten railway stations in the constituency, the highest number in any constituency. There is the Dublin-Rosslare mainline service and the DART service between Dublin city centre and Greystones and recently the local authority adopted a scheme to bring the Luas line to Cherrywood. As a result, there is substantial interest in my constituency both in rail travel and rail safety.

I have mixed feelings about this Bill. I am glad that railway safety is being addressed in the House and that an independent body is being established to oversee it. I wonder, however, if what is being provided for is a convenient mechanism whereby the Minister and the Government can absolve themselves of direct responsibility for the safety of our railway lines, particularly investment in safety measures.

At the end of the explanatory memorandum, we are given the estimated costs of the legislation. We are told it will come to €2 million a year to fund the office of the commission and the appointment of nine staff. That sum will not provide for the safety of our railway lines.

The Bill also sets out the responsibilities of the commission, which will examine and oversee the area of railway safety. Obligations are put on the operators of railway services and lines and there are provisions for the safety of new rolling stock, railway lines and services. I cannot find, however, any obligation on the Minister or Government to improve or invest in the existing railway lines or service. This is of interest to me from a constituency point of view because of my concerns and the concerns of many of my constituents about the safety of the railway line that runs between Dalkey and Shankill, which runs beside the sea, the line between Bray and Greystones and sections of the railway line from there further on, with which I am less familiar, although other Members of the House may be more familiar with it, where I understand there are similar problems.

It is only a couple of weeks ago that the DART services between Bray and Greystones were suspended because of a landslide along the railway line. Last week I had the opportunity to walk along that line. There is a pleasant walk which I often take on a Sunday from Bray Head to Greystones. It is a public walkway which overlooks the railway line between Bray and Greystones. It is a beautiful area and a lovely train journey for people who take it. However, there is serious coastal erosion along that line. There is also a serious problem with landslides on the railway line. Considerable investment must be made to make that line safe.

That is not the only area affected by such problems. A little over a year ago a serious accident was narrowly avoided between Shankill and Dalkey when the driver of an early morning DART train realised that a landslide was occurring overhead on Killiney Hill. I understand from local authority engineers that the cause of that landslide related to developments in the area over the years when water ran off the roads and became embedded in the ground over the railway line. That caused the ground to slip down on to the line.

Some time before that, but within the past two years, the people of the area were greatly surprised one morning when a fleet of JCBs appeared on Killiney beach. There was concern that an invasion was about to take place or that someone was trying to make a film about the Normandy landings on Killiney beach. However, Iarnród Éireann had arranged for emergency works to be carried out because the degree of coastal erosion along the Killiney coast was putting the railway line at risk. I had already brought that issue to the attention of the authorities because of concerns constituents had expressed to me from their knowledge of the area. They saw that the coast line was being seriously eroded and that there was a risk to the railway line. There is a need for substantial investment to protect the Dublin-Rosslare railway line and those sections of the DART line which are at risk both from coastal erosion and from landslides from higher ground.

I am not sure this legislation will deal with that issue. It provides for the establishment of a commission which will make reports on it and for a tribunal if there is an accident. However, what is required to deal with that problem is investment in safety, in coastal protection works and in works to protect the railway line. To achieve that, some measure must be introduced to require the different authorities which are affected to work with each other. At present, coastal protection works are the responsibility of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the local authorities. Some of the land which overhangs railway lines and adjoins the shoreline is in private ownership, while in other cases, it is the responsibility of the local authorities. There is not any means in the legislation by which the commission can deal with that.

I understand the commission will be empowered to put all types of responsibilities on the operators of the line and to make rules and regulations about the safety of the line. However, in the cases I have cited and about which my constituents have concerns the land which needs to be shored up and dealt with is outside the railway line and is in different ownership from the ownership of Iarnród Éireann. The coastal protection works which are required in the areas between Dalkey and Shankill and between Bray and Greystones are outside the remit both of Iarnród Éireann and of the commission which is being established. I cannot find in the legislation any means by which the Minister can cause the local authority, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources who has responsibility for coastal protection, or private land owners whose land abuts or overhangs the railway line to take measures to ensure the safety of the line.

I would like the Minister to re-examine that because the issue of safety along the Dalkey to Shankill section, the Bray to Greystones section and other sections Deputies may mention is important. These areas cannot wait a long time to be dealt with. There is an urgency to ensure the safety of those lines. The line to which I refer is in increasing use. It is the line for the Dublin-Rosslare service which connects our two main passenger ferry ports, Dún Laoghaire and Rosslare. That means many passengers use the line. It is also the line which serves the DART service to Greystones and it services an increasing amount of commuter traffic from Wicklow, Arklow and Gorey. Increasing numbers of people who cannot afford to buy a house in the Dublin area are moving there. Working middle class people in my constituency are being priced out of living there. They are moving to Arklow and Gorey and using the train to commute. That means a demand for increased services which will put increased pressure on that line and on its safety.

That is one issue of safety I wanted to draw to the Minister's attention. A second issue of safety I want to draw to his attention, as I represent a constituency which has ten railway stations, relates to the safety of the stations and the safety and security of the trains which use them. I refer to the use of the train, particularly the DART service, at night. If a station is not well lit or manned, it is an intimidating place to be at 10.30 p.m. or 11 p.m. Many people who would otherwise be happy to use the DART service are discouraged from doing so because of the unfriendly and unsafe atmosphere they experience in some stations.

I acknowledge – I have said this in the House and to Iarnród Éireann – there have been some improvements, but we have a long way to go. Let us consider the situation of a person getting off at Shankill DART station at 10.30 p.m., with not many passengers on the train, perhaps one or two people waiting on the platform and no staff present. Having to cross the railway bridge and proceed up a ramp to the exit is not a particularly inviting prospect at that time of night. If we want more people to use public transport and to encourage safety, we must first ensure that railway stations are properly lit and staffed, that there is somebody in charge and that people can feel safe at those stations. Concerns have also been expressed to me about safety on the trains.

I will give a few examples of complaints I have received from constituents this week alone in that regard. In an e-mail message, one constituent said:

The reduction in staff and an increase in lawlessness among young people has made CIE less and less able to control behaviour on trains and buses. The result is destruction of public property and growing fear among the travelling public, especially the old and vulnerable. I personally witnessed a young man urinate in sight of all, in the middle of the day, on a Dalkey station platform only a few weeks ago.

In another case, a woman said that on a DART train, she saw a noisy group of brawny youths drinking from beer cans and smoking cigarettes. Nobody in the carriage felt able to confront the offenders, nor should the travelling public be expected to do so when there is the possibility of personal injury.

This is typical of complaints I receive frequently from constituents expressing their sense of a lack of safety on trains and at stations. I have made my point as to what should be done to improve safety at railway stations. I suggest a very simple measure for the Minister's consideration to improve safety on the trains. A freephone number should be advertised within each carriage so that if there is a problem, such as an outbreak of rowdiness on a train, somebody could use his or her mobile phone discreetly to make a call to that number. Staff of the railway company, or the Garda Síochána, could then board the train at the next station to deal with the problem. While I do not consider it necessary to have a strong police presence on trains at all times of day, there are ways of bringing the attention of the appropriate authorities to problems arising in terms of personal safety so that effective action can be taken.

I welcome the Bill in general, in the sense that railway safety is being addressed. However, the establishment of a commission alone will not deal effectively with the real issues of safety which need to be addressed and for which investment is required in relation to physical safety on railway lines. Better management and greater vigilance will be required, as well as greater improvement of railway stations, in order to give a sense of personal safety to the increasing numbers of people using the railway services, particularly the suburban services which I hope to see expanded in the years ahead.

Mr. Ellis

I wish to share time with Deputies Killeen and Glennon. This Bill is welcome because rail safety, like road safety, is of paramount importance to every citizen. Nobody wishes to have accidents occurring in this country like those which have occurred elsewhere, such as the most recent one in Sydney which caused great concern in relation to rail safety. The need to update rail safety legislation is well accepted and the present Bill provides an opportunity to do so. It also gives Deputies an opportunity to fly a parochial flag in relation to problems with some of our railway lines over many years.

The brief which the Minister for Transport has taken on represents the first integrated approach to national roads, the rail structure and Bus Éireann. It is appropriate that all those areas should fall within one Department. While the need for development of the rail service was generally accepted, it was only in the past five years that any major investment has taken place. Everybody welcomes the upgrading of lines, leading to greater safety on the rail system and more pleasant journeys for rail users.

I wish to refer to the Dublin-Sligo line in particular. The introduction of welded rail on that line is welcome. When the small remaining section of that project is completed, we will have, for the first time, a guarantee of long-term development of the Dublin-Sligo rail line. There is a welcome increase in the number of people using the rail system in this country and it is essential to upgrade the facilities. While there has been investment in railway stations and track, the inadequate standard of rolling stock gives cause for concern. There have been frequent breakdowns on the Dublin-Sligo line. Problems in relation to heating and overcrowding are very common on this line, especially at weekends. Action is essential in that regard.

With regard to the improvement of rolling stock, a recent letter which I received from Iarnród Éireann did not make great reading but at least it gave some hope, indicating that upgraded rolling stock would not be available until 2005 or 2006. I hope the new rolling stock will not be the discards from other lines. If that were to happen, we would be left with a second class carriage system on a first class track. If we are to encourage more people to use the rail system, carriages and engines will have to be upgraded. I realise this cannot be done overnight as there is quite a long lead-in time even in the case of urban rolling stock. A figure of €2 million per carriage may seem expensive but I believe people are prepared to pay for a good service. Ways and means should be found to upgrade the rolling stock at a much earlier date than is currently proposed.

On the Dublin-Sligo line, at least one or two more trains per day should be introduced. The early morning train from Sligo should run six days a week. However, the greatest need is for a late night service from Dublin to Sligo. Currently, the last service leaves Connolly station at around 6.20 p.m. That is not suitable for many people. On Friday evenings, those visiting Dublin on business or those who work there are not well served by the train service. Iarnród Éireann should be asked to look favourably on the provision of a late night service, with a train leaving Dublin at, say, 9 p.m. and reaching Sligo about 12 midnight. I suggest that is not beyond the bounds of possibility for Iarnród Éireann.

I want to raise one or two other parochial subjects, one of which concerns the proposal which is with Iarnród Éireann for a commuter service from Ballymote to Sligo in regard to which a feasibility study has been carried out. As the line lies idle from when the early morning train goes out past Ballymote until such time as the midday train comes down, there is plenty of time to provide a commuter service, which would also help to relieve traffic congestion in Sligo town. It is a proposal which should be looked into.

The feasibility of reopening the Collooney to Limerick line which runs along the west of Ireland should also be examined. This line has been mothballed for years. With a little invest ment, it could make a sizeable contribution towards the development of the west of Ireland.

I would appeal to Iarnród Éireann not to do away with the freight service from Dublin to Sligo. If we are to take heavy trucks off our roads, the freight service must be maintained. There is an urgent need for Iarnród Éireann to go out and market the freight service. If it did so, it would find that there is quite an amount of business out there. One must seek out business, it will not come knocking at the door.

Mr. Killeen

I, too, welcome the Rail Safety Bill. As virtually everybody who has contributed to the debate has said, we have, somewhat belatedly, taken on board our own personal responsibilities in road safety and clearly similar issues apply in rail safety, particularly at a time when, as Deputy Ellis said, ever greater numbers of people are prepared to consider this option. Certainly the establishment of the railway safety commission and, indeed, the advisory council, is inevitably going to lead to considerable improvement in this area. In the case of road safety, I suppose the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual motorist. In this instance, it is a slightly more corporate matter. It is, however, one which needs to be addressed following the various incidents, not only in Ireland but, indeed, internationally.

Many Deputies have referred to the need to upgrade the quality of stations. That is a consideration for people who make the choice of using rail. There are a few factors which clearly affect people and influence that decision. Undoubtedly one of them is the quality of the stations. Obviously people also like to know that they will be able to be accommodated on the train and, if it is a long journey, that they will be seated on the train. Frequently people coming to stations need parking facilities and quite often these are not adequate or safe, and in either event that creates some difficulties.

I was in London over the new year and I noted that they have run into a problem which we would have difficulty imagining, namely, they have too many trains for their tracks. There was a headline, which undoubtedly has some truth underlying it, that there was a proposal that as many as 100 trains be taken off the network in the UK. They are unlikely to heed the difficulty of having too many trains in the short-term but assuming that it happens with even 10% or 20% of them, it would be interesting to know what will happen to them and whether it would be possible to acquire them for use in this country at a reasonable cost in view of the fact that there appear to be so many.

I want to make reference to the need for upgrading and, perhaps more particularly, increasing the number of services on lines such as the Ennis-Limerick line, and indeed the Limerick-Sligo line, which was just mentioned and which effectively has been mothballed. That line, which requires a fair amount of investment, is one which undoubtedly could generate business were it to be opened. It requires a decision to invest in rolling stock and in marketing the line, and it will not happen without that commitment.

There is a strong campaign in my own area for a spur line into Shannon Airport. I understand that would be by far the cheapest link to an airport. Consideration is being given to doing the same in the case of Dublin Airport, which from my perspective is also welcome. However, I would like to see us making a somewhat brave, and perhaps slightly unusual, decision to provide an infrastructure which would benefit people travelling into an industrial estate, which has almost 10,000 people working in it, on the periphery of the airport and which would also benefit the quality of service for the travellers using the airport itself. On occasion we need to be a little more adventurous, take what may not quite be a leap of faith and indicate our willingness to allow investment in innovative provisions such as this which undoubtedly would have the prospect of bringing very substantial benefits eventually.

Mr. Glennon

Like my colleagues, I welcome this legislation. In my first contribution on transport to this House, I congratulate the Minister on the number of initiatives he has brought about in his short time in office and look forward to a continuation of this work, hopefully over the next five years but certainly for as lengthy a period as possible. In the context of the railway system, it will be necessary for the Minister and his successors to concentrate and bring a huge degree of focus to a system which has suffered chronically since the foundation of the State. Several Deputies have mentioned that the legislation on which the system is based is almost entirely, if not completely, British. We tend to forget that the network itself is almost entirely British-built. During the course of the last century hardly any additional track was laid in this State, whereas during the same period several hundred miles of track were lifted.

What we are looking at is a process of modernisation of the entire railway system. We have already had the huge investment in rail safety undertaken by the last Government to the tune of approximately €600 million over a four year period. That, as an indicator of things to come, was very welcome. It has certainly brought the system up to date to a very large degree, but we must remember the base from which we have come.

It will not come as a surprise to the House, or indeed to the Minister, to hear that I am about to concentrate almost solely on the area of the railway system which relates to my constituency. To put that into perspective, when I started travelling on the train 30 years ago there was what was quaintly referred to as a halt about a mile from the main station in my home town of Skerries. This halt was provided for the benefit of the members of the local golf club. Apparently under the by-laws inherited by CIE, as it was at the time, from the GNR, the members had the right to ask the driver to stop at this halt, whether it was a scheduled stop or not, so that they could be convenienced in their leisure pursuits. It is probably totally coincidental that the president of that golf club for a number of years was one Seán F. Lemass. That is the background from which we are coming. It is an indicator of the massive steps that are needed.

The vast bulk of my working constituents in Dublin North use the railway system to get to and from work. Thirty years ago I could get onto a train at peak hour and, as a young student with a natural degree of irresponsibility, my only question was whether I would be in a position to rest my feet on the seat opposite.

That has changed dramatically. Now it is a question of whether one has sufficient space while standing to turn the pages of a newspaper. If I read a tabloid, it might be easier. It is extremely difficult to read broadsheets at peak times.

Our population is dominated by commuters who want to use the rail system but who are daily being given excuses by the operator not to do so. They are being given reasons to criticise and their criticisms of a system that is being pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st century are justified. I will not compare our system with those of Europe or our immediate neighbour. Suffice to say that there is a different culture in their systems. It is a culture we must aspire to if we are to get maximum benefit from our rail infrastructure.

I welcome the provision for a railway safety advisory council. I urge the Minister to ensure that a significant number of rail users, both commercial and private, are on the council. One only has to use the system to realise the difficulties encountered by rail users. I have tried to use it but, frankly, it is not worth it at times. It is unreliable, unhealthy and unsafe. I do not mean that in the sense that there is potential for crashes because the record of CIE in that regard is excellent. However, when one stands cheek by jowl with a complete stranger at 7 a.m. for a period of up to 45 minutes, one gets a real perspective on the difficulties that are encountered daily not only by adults commuting to and from work but also young teenage schoolchildren. A number of unsavoury incidents have taken place as a result of such overcrowding.

Safety is not simply a question of protection from impact, it also encompasses personal privacy issues and, to some degree and without getting into the realms of hype, psychological issues. There are people who travel on the train every day for their entire working career. They are subjected to an utterly inferior service. Safety should extend beyond the prevention of impact and take account of the requirements of commuters. In that regard, I read with horror this week about the proposed major new town at Donaghmede which will have a population of approximately 20,000. The publicity blurb said it would be built alongside the Dublin-Belfast railway line and would avail of the existing service. If even 20% of the population of that new town were to use the existing rail service, it would have a dramatic ripple effect on all users in the area.

I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on the initiatives he has taken during his short time in office. I hope this Bill is the start of a lengthy process of modernisation not only of the legislation relating to the railway infrastructure but also of the infrastructure itself and the culture in our railway network.

Mr. Kehoe

I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill before the House. Ireland is lucky that it has had no major railway disaster in recent years. Many years ago in Wexford there were two major rail accidents but they did not result in any fatalities. Overall, there have been no major rail fatalities when one considers the disaster that occurred in Australia two weeks ago and recent accidents in the UK.

Nevertheless, accidents have occurred which could have been avoided, particularly accidents on level crossings. I have spoken to our transport spokesman, Deputy Naughten, about the dangers of level crossings and the need for lighting and warning signs. People are inclined to drive straight through them, especially when they are unmanned. The Minister's decision to establish a railway safety commission, independent of Irish Rail and of the Minister's office, is welcome. I hope when its findings are released they will be implemented. The future aim of the railways is to stop accidents from happening.

Railway safety has never been a priority. A great deal of money must be invested in bringing rail lines and carriageways up to proper safety standards. As happened to Deputy Gilmore, a number of my constituents have contacted me to complain about standards in railway stations and in the carriages. However, I will discuss that later. The Government's investment in the rail system has been nothing short of disgraceful in recent years. Rail travel is the future. We must try to get people off the roads. I welcome the investment in road safety but we must think of rail safety as well. The same amount of money spent on road safety should be invested in rail safety.

Instead of ripping up rail lines across the country, we should promote the use of the railway. I travel on the railway line between Rosslare and Dublin. The number of speed restrictions would make one think one was on a merry-go-round. Deputy Gilmore spoke about the Bray to Greystones line, which is part of the Dublin to Rosslare line. The number of speed restrictions is unbelievable. The Minister should take a trip on that rail line. I am aware that he has promised money for it but I would like to see him travel on it and see the amount of time it takes due to speed restrictions and frequent stops.

We will not have a railway system in years to come if the Government does not invest in it now. The railways will be deemed unsafe for travel. I believe the Government will be happy with that. The Minister has given a commitment that the Rosslare-Waterford-Limerick line will remain open. I hope it does, to cater for the amount of freight that travels on that line. The Department can generate business on the line if the price is right and if the right person goes looking for the business. As Deputy Ellis said, if one does not go looking for business, it will not come to one's door. One has to look for business to get it.

The closure of rail lines will force more people on to our already overcrowded and dangerous roads. We are trying to encourage people off the roads and to use alternative transport. That alternative is rail. A large number of people travel from my constituency of Wexford to Dublin each day by road, as they cannot get the service they want if they travel by rail. Wexford is about 80 miles from Dublin and I often travel up to the Dáil by train. The journey takes three to three and a half hours, whereas I could do it by car in little over two hours. This is not a properly run system. I lived in England many years ago on work experience through college, and I used the train as a means of transport as I had no car. Getting from Kent, in the south of England, to London took little over an hour, even though it is a longer journey than that from Wexford to Dublin. People were encouraged to use trains in England. The system was quick and people knew they would get to their destination on time. They did not have to spend two or three hours on a train. The system was safe, comfortable and provided everything that we lack. I know England has had rail accidents, but it was a comfort to travel on those trains, which is most important.

The Government is losing the plot by not investing in rail safety and not assuring people that they will be safe on our trains. It is important to assure people that when they use trains, they will be safe and offer everything else they would look for. When one looks at the more basic aspect of rail service provision, the carriages that operate between Rosslare and Dublin are years old. Like other Deputies, I have received a letter from Iarnród Éireann assuring me that the rolling stock will be replaced in years to come. I travelled home from the Dáil by train about three weeks ago. The carriages on that train were scandalous. They were cold and uncomfortable. The toilets in three or four carriages were not working. I paid €16 or €17 for a one-way ticket. When one pays that much for a means of transport, one expects a level of service. I was not happy with the standard of service when I got off that train. It does not deter me from using the railway service. People in my constituency, however, tell me that when they receive that level of service they are not willing to use the railway again. They would prefer to travel by car, bus or whatever.

Another Deputy on this side of the House mentioned wheelchair access on trains. I know a lady in my constituency who went to receive a hospital check-up in Dublin and returned home accompanied by her daughter, who was in a wheelchair. They could not get the wheelchair into the carriage, so the mother was forced to sit on a toilet seat. That was the only means of keeping the wheelchair stable between carriages. This is not acceptable in 2003. People with disabilities should be to the fore in terms of receiving a good service. It is a matter the Department of Transport should take up. Iarnród Éireann will apologise for the inconvenience in such cases, but that is not satisfactory for the parent who had to sit on the toilet seat the whole way from Dublin to Rosslare. I do not think the Minister would sit on a toilet seat from Dublin to Rosslare. I can assure him that I would not, and it should not be acceptable for anybody else to have to do so either. I would like to see the Government make proper resources available as a result of this Bill to ensure that persons with disabilities can use our railway system to the fullest extent. I hope the Minister will take note and make this happen.

Then we come to issue of overcrowding on trains. This does not happen too often on my own line, but it does on a Friday evening. I was in Egypt during the summer and saw people hanging out of the windows of buses. One would not see the likes of that anywhere else. When one travels on some of our railway lines, however, especially on Friday evenings and weekends, the overcrowding is scandalous and dangerous. It is an accident waiting to happen, and no emergency service would be able to deal with any accident involving an overcrowded train. It would not have the necessary manpower, ambulances or fire brigades. Someone earlier mentioned being unable to read a newspaper on a train. That is totally unacceptable. Overcrowding has to be looked at immediately. There is not much prospect of our trains gaining additional carriages at present, given that the Government has only promised to replace existing carriages within the next seven or eight years. The provision of additional carriages or extensions to the line is not going to happen.

I do not believe the type of overcrowding experienced on our trains would be allowed to happen in other countries. I am not 100% sure of this, but I believe some EU countries limit the number of passengers who are allowed to stand in carriages. That should be looked into immediately in order to ensure people's safety. The week before last, my local newspaper carried a two-page spread on the journey from Dublin to Rosslare on a Friday evening. It included photographs of students having to sit on the ground and people having to sit on toilets or wherever they could find a space. That is not acceptable.

We must invest properly in railway stations and make them up to date and modern. Someone earlier talked about proper lighting and staffing of railway stations to make them safer. There is bad lighting in Rathnew. I noted last week that in one part of that station, there is no lighting at all for people getting off the train. The way things are going at the moment, we will not get the extra 2,000 gardaí we were promised, so the best resources we can hope for are lighting and CCTV cameras. Nobody knows what will happen in these stations at night time, especially when people are waiting on a train to arrive or are getting off a train. We know the way things have gone in the past year in particular in terms of muggings and so on. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not know it, perhaps he does not want to.

The only way to stop the type of things that have been happening to people is to put the resources into railway stations to make sure that they are properly lit, properly staffed and safe for older passengers in particular. I know older people who have free travel passes but still will not travel on trains because they are afraid of what is happening on carriages. Deputy Gilmore noted earlier that people are afraid to take trains because they are not safe on carriages or in stations. These people either take the bus or do not use their travel passes at all. They should be encouraged to use their travel passes to travel by rail. All railway tracks, particularly those near towns and cities, should be properly fenced off to prevent people, particularly young people, walking on the tracks. I thank the previous Minister for the money she spent on cutting hedges and fencing off the Rosslare-Wexford line. It made the line safer and I would like to see the same job done as far as Gorey. It is important that people are kept off railway tracks to prevent accidents. I know of two incidents in my constituency where people were killed while walking the tracks. The proper resources should be allocated to fencing off tracks.

Rail freight is very important as it keeps many heavy vehicles off the roads. Iarnród Éireann spoke of closing the Rosslare-Limerick line. Had it done so many goods would have had to be carried by road. I only have to think of the use the beet factory at Wellington Bridge in Wexford makes of rail freight. The extra trucks required to carry this by road would be disastrous. It is important that this line is open for freight.

The under-funding of railways in the past has forced the Government to make a decision on whether it should continue with a rail freight service. Given the increases in labour and insurance costs, Iarnród Éireann would get much more rail freight business if it looked for it. I have met many companies in Waterford through the chamber of commerce and several of them would much prefer to use rail freight than roads because they know it will arrive at its destination on time. Rail freight must be continued and it must be viable for companies to use the service. The Government has said that not enough companies are seeking to use rail freight but additional business is there to be had.

Roads are already in bad repair without extra transport being forced on to them. Many lives have been lost on the road and a significant increase in freight carrying vehicles will definitely lead to more deaths. The programme for Government said rail freight would be encouraged. I have not yet heard or seen the Government encouraging rail freight.

Ireland must get a proper rail network that incorporates safety, reliability and good service. We must also encourage people to use the service. The Minister must ensure the proper funding, expertise and attention is given to making our rail network world-class in terms of safety and reliability. Ireland has been lucky that it has not had to face the horror rail accidents witnessed in other countries. Railway is the future of Ireland's transport. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Nolan

I wish to share time with Deputy Mulcahy. If this Bill does nothing else, it reassures rail passengers that the Government is serious about rail safety and they can travel in the secure knowledge that best international standards are being adhered to by Irish Rail.

One of the disappointments of the past 40 years is the number of lines that were closed by CIE. The line from Bagenalstown, through Borris to New Ross was closed. I am not so old that I do not remember that line running. It was closed and the rail lines were removed and bought by a company that used the sleepers in the manufacturing of hay barns. It is sad to see some of the fine bridges and architecture of this line lie unused. Examples of railways that were operational 50 years ago but no longer exist are to be found all over the country.

One of the main complaints from rail users is the general overcrowding of trains – this becomes particularly bad at weekends. I know of students who travel home at weekends and complain about not being able to find a free seat on a train during the course of three or four months at a time. The quality and condition of rolling stock in recent years has left much to be desired.

I am pleased the Government decided, in 1999, to initiate a programme of investment in Iarnród Éireann. To date, more than €400 million has been spent on this programme. The programme will be implemented by the end of this year and the Minister tells me it is proceeding satisfactorily. Of the 371 level crossings that have been made safe, 217 were noted as being high-risk. There have not been too many accidents on our railways but some of the major accidents we have seen were at unmanned level crossings. Under this programme 228 bridges have been renewed and 150 miles of rail line has been fenced off to deter trespassers and stray animals.

The employees of Iarnród Éireann are to be complimented on the manner in which they take their work so seriously. I often see them walking the tracks, ensuring the lines are safe and fences are intact. Significant funds have also been invested in upgrading cuttings and embankments and in improving safety management systems. The Exchequer and EU provided more than €150 million last year and this rolling programme of investment will continue.

Lack of investment over the years has taken its toll on our rail service. Successive Governments are to blame for the lack of legislation to ensure that we have a first class rail service. The modernisation of our railways must be a priority not only for this but for future Governments. The closure of lines has happened and that is unfortunate, but as far as possible they should be kept intact. Some of the fine bridges built in the last century should not be demolished or destroyed. They should be kept intact in order that if the necessary resources are available to reopen these lines at some stage in the future, that can be done.

Investing in the railways should reduce, to some extent, our dependence on our roads. We are all aware of the congestion currently on our roads. I take the train on a regular basis from Carlow to Dublin to come to this House. However, one of my disappointments with the service is that it does not operate as frequently as one would like. Carlow, being 55 miles from Dublin, is within the commuter belt of Dublin. Many people living in Carlow commute to Dublin to work. From speaking to many of them I am aware that they would like to avail of a better rail service. The first train from Carlow to Dublin leaves Carlow at 6.30 a.m. and the next train does not leave until 8.50 a.m. Unfortunately, that train arrives in Dublin too late to accommodate many commuters' work needs. When Iarnród Éireann is examining how to improving its service, it should consider investment in towns within a 60-mile radius of the capital.

Another aspect one hears frequently complained about is the lack of car parking spaces at some provincial rail stations. When these stations were built, no one would have envisaged the level of use of cars. Therefore, people did not plan for car parking for commuters. However, it is a fact of life now that people commute to railway stations and the number of car parking spaces available is not adequate. I encourage Iarnród Éireann to provide this facility at no cost to the commuter. Such a facility should be part and parcel of its operations. The cost of such parking for commuters using its service should be included in the price of rail tickets.

A facet of rail transport which I fail to understand, particularly in Dublin, having regard to what is currently happening there, is that a direct rail link to the docks has not been built. The quays are congested on a daily basis with transport lorries carrying freight from the docks, although the port tunnel will alleviate some of that traffic. In parallel with that project, we should have examined investment in a rail link to Dublin docks. It is not beyond the engineers in Iarnród Éireann to put a spur off the Amiens Street line to link it to the docks and thereby alleviate some of the horrendous traffic that currently clogs up the city centre.

Dublin docks should also be discouraged as far as possible from handling container traffic. Places such as Rosslare and Waterford, whose port facilities are not overused, should take a good deal more container traffic. There is a first class rail link between Waterford and Dublin and Rosslare and Dublin, although there are proposals to close part of the freight service from Rosslare to Limerick. By encouraging more shippers to use Rosslare and Waterford Ports, we could alleviate some of the current problems in the Dublin area.

One of the problems we must face and for which we, as legislators, must take some of the blame is the length of time it takes for decisions to be taken and actions to be carried out. Some might say this is due to a lack of commitment by members of Government or to the Civil Service culture, under which everybody covers his or her back in case there is a problem. However, times are changing and we have an obligation to encourage and promote a greater use of our rail lines. The political masters should bite the bullet and take the necessary decisions.

If we do not improve the quality of our rail transport service, inevitably we will push more commuters back on to our roads. Anyone who suffers the problem of commuting to Dublin on a weekly basis is aware that the road system cannot take much more traffic.

I welcome the Bill, but I would like it to be only part of the solution to our problems. I am glad that Iarnród Éireann is investing in new rolling stock which will come on stream this year and next year. In tandem with that, it will have to find some way of improving the service for commuters. We should not talk only of Dublin commuters. The cities of Limerick and Cork would also benefit from an improved rail service.

I wish the Minister well with the Bill and I hope it has a speedy and successful passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Mulcahy

I am delighted to commend the Minister, the Minister of State and the Government on introducing this important legislation. Railways will play a much larger part in our lives than they have heretofore. There is the new spatial strategy and rail services will connect the regions to all the cities. It is important to note that the definition of railway activity in the Bill includes the Luas.

I wish to speak about Luas and suburban rail lines. The population of Dublin is currently 1.1 million and by the year 2030 it will be 1.6 million. We will have suburban railways, perhaps an underground metro system and the Luas. The Luas will interface with streets, communities, crossroads and urban centres. People will walk within centimetres of the Luas line and the possibility for accidents in such circumstances will be increased.

I reiterate what my colleague, Deputy Nolan, said in complimenting the former Minister for Public Enterprise, who is now Leader of the Seanad, Senator O'Rourke, who undeniably put in place a major investment in March 1999 when the Government approved a railway investment package of €546 billion to be spent between 1999 and 2003. I am aware that the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, will put in place a second phase of that investment beginning in 2004, which is essential.

We have inherited a great deal of English law and when statutes are put on the Statute Book in England we seem to copy or amend them for our purposes. We have the advantage sometimes of lagging behind what happens in Britain by a few years. Nowhere can we profit more from that fact, than in the case of railways. They have made a complete hames of the railway system in England, certainly vis-à-vis safety. We do not want to go down that road. It was one thing to privatise the railway operators, but it was another to privatise the rail track operators. I am sure the Minister will agree that what happened in England was that the rail track operators went bust and had to revert to public ownership.

I want to make the case strongly that, under no circumstances should the rail network in Ireland ever come under private ownership. It is a vital national asset that may not be fully utilised at present, but it must always be kept under public control.

This is not necessarily so for rail operators. The time has come when we must examine the possibility of private companies becoming involved in the rail network. We have seen how private operators have done an excellent job on provincial routes and the Dublin Airport route in complementing CIE's role in public transport. I am disappointed with the level and quality of service from Iarnród Éireann, as are many others. Last year we returned by train from the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting. The locomotive broke down half way and we were left sitting on the line for an hour and a half. There was also a problem with the level of service on the train. That is one of a few experiences. I know the staff and management work hard but a little competition on the Irish rail operating system would not be bad. However, it would not apply to the track, signalling system and rail safety, only to the running and management of trains.

This is an excellent Bill. The idea of a railway safety commission that is independent of the Minister is important. The functions of the commission are set out clearly in section 10: ". . . to foster and encourage railway safety, to regulate and enforce railway safety, and to investigate and report on railway incidents". Those are three important functions that the commission must carry out. I am glad they are being taken from the Department because it means there will be a watchdog and external body that can monitor these areas on behalf of the public.

I welcome Part 3 which lists the general duty of those working on the railways. Section 38 states: "It shall be the general duty of a railway undertaking to ensure, in so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of persons in the operation of its railway". Section 39 elaborates on that. There do not appear to be sanctions for people in breach of that duty. As I understand it, it is probably a matter of common law that they would be amenable to the courts. Should proper provision have been made in the Bill for people in breach of that duty to come to the attention of the commission? The general duty to take care in sections 38 and 39 appears to be floating on its own. Perhaps we should examine that.

The second important aspect of the Bill is the establishment of a railway safety advisory council. Even though I am a Government backbencher, I have a question mark about this. Why do we need two bodies? There has been a dose of "quango-itis" in the country in recent years. We seem to establish bodies for everything. I understand the railway safety advisory council will have different functions. Section 80 sets out that it shall make recommendations on safety, if appropriate, to the Minister. That is important, but why should the commission not have the safety brief? Would it not have been possible to merge the two bodies into one and have a recommendation function within the railway safety commission? I am sure there is a good reason.

In general, we have a tendency to create a large number of bodies and I intend to campaign in the next few years about what I will call "quango-itis". We appear to establish agencies left, right and centre with their own offices, computers and glossy broadsheets, and this adds up to a significant amount of money. At a time when we must trim our cloth to the available wind, we should examine the number of agencies that have been established outside Departments.

I hope that by the time Luas comes on stream, the commission will be up and running and producing safety statements.

Mr. Crawford

Like my colleagues, I welcome the Bill and hope that it creates safer transport and brings about major improvements in the rail network. I wish to declare an interest in that the railroad ran through my family holding until the late 1960s. Unfortunately, like the Minister's county of Donegal, the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan does not have much to benefit now from the Bill. However, I believe it is still important nationally and it is in that context I wish to speak on the Bill.

I am jealous of other constituencies when I see the sizeable budget available for the rail network. The figures I obtained from the Department were €261 million for railway safety and related matters and €127 million for the Luas project. I welcome the expenditure of that money.

However, back in the late 1960s, promises were made that if the railroad was taken out of the regions, it would save the country an enormous amount of money and we would be compensated by efforts to build a proper road network. It is now 2003 and we have received the first commitment towards a bypass of Carrickmacross in County Monaghan and there is still no commitment to a bypass of Monaghan town. When I look at successive Governments, especially the pre vious one during the era of the Celtic tiger, I must ask how well the money is being redistributed. Some recognition should be given to the three counties of Ulster – Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan – which are not benefiting from the railway budget. We should receive something additional in the form of roads infrastructure. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, would not disagree with me when I say that we should jointly ensure that a proper road runs from Dublin city to the third largest city on the island, namely, Derry. It would be of major benefit to all people in the Border area and the north-west.

Dr. McDaid

And to Carrickmacross.

Mr. Crawford

Exactly. We should certainly work together to ensure that happens. It is a long time – from 1967 to 2003 – to obtain that commitment.

I used the railway as much as possible in my earlier days when the lines were in place. My parents brought us to Dublin for medical and other appointments. Unfortunately, the railway did not last. In later years when I was on the board of Cork Marts-IMP, a major farmer-owned meat industry, I travelled to Dublin, joined the railroad at 7.30 in the morning and arrived in Cork at 10 a.m. That was a tremendous service. The railway services the southern part of my constituency, especially in the Carrickmacross and south Monaghan area where workers can take the train from Dundalk to Dublin. That journey takes one hour and the passengers can use mobile phones or laptop computers to work while they travel by train. As a Deputy for Cavan-Monaghan, I do not have that same advantage and I have to drive through the chaos on the roads. This is a stark example of how parts of this country are treated.

Due to the lack of service on the Dublin to Dundalk route and the level of demand for the existing service, people often have to stand for the entire journey. People aged 75 or 80 years might have to get up at 6 o'clock to go to Dublin for a medical appointment and use the train for easy access to the city. They have a long wait at the hospital and take a taxi back to the train station. Having perhaps had a minor operation on their legs, they then have to stand for the full journey from Dublin to Dundalk. An hour may not be a long time, but for someone in that condition, it is very unfair.

There is still some semblance of rail structure into my constituency between Navan and Kingscourt and this must be reinstated as a proper service. Imagine what this would do for the N3 road to Dublin if at least some of that traffic could be removed from the road, put on a proper rail service to Kingscourt and perhaps even be extended to Carrickmacross. This would allow people to travel in comfort and off the roads straight to the centre of Dublin city. Reality has hit home and money is scarce in 2003 even though none of us could have believed that a year ago. Let us not eliminate the possibility of a service in that region by removing the track. It would be much handier for people to drive to Kingscourt and use the railway from there. Freight could also be removed from the road by putting it on the train at Kingscourt and bringing it to Dublin or wherever it has to go.

I want to highlight the problems that the lack of rail service has caused to the Cavan area. There was a Bus Éireann service that allowed people to get from Cavan to Dublin in the morning and back again after work. While it was a long day, they did not have any hassle. They could relax on the bus without having to worry about driving or the high cost of living in Dublin. I believe the cost of that service was €37 per week. In the interest of competition, which I favour, an independent bus service was put on and the Bus Éireann one was withdrawn. Unfortunately the independent service leaves Dublin at 5 o'clock in the evening. There is a Bus Éireann service later that night but there is no early morning service. This is an example of competition requirements gone mad. People in Cavan have had to either do without the service and stay in Dublin during the week or pay for two services, €38 in the morning and €37 in the evening for the five days. The cost has doubled because of so-called competition. It is bureaucracy gone mad. Where there is no rail service the Government has an obligation to ensure people like this are looked after. They can get a service from County Cavan by driving behind the bus from Cavan town to Virginia, park there and get on the bus, but that is not acceptable.

Where there is no railway, there should be other opportunities. When I first started travelling to Dublin through my involvement in a farmers' organisation, I could get from my home through Dublin city to Bluebell in two hours. I might not have always kept within the so-called 60 mph limit, but there was no limit in those days, if the Minister will forgive me. However, to do the same journey now requires a minimum of three hours and part of that is because of the new regulations at Slane bridge, which are unbelievable.

From the M50 into Dublin there is only one lane for cars while the bus lane is often empty. Why can we not have park and ride facilities at the all the major junctions with the M50? That is not a major economic issue. Under PPP schemes, private companies would gladly build the parking facilities if there was agreement that the service would be provided on those empty bus lanes. We could solve much of the Dublin transport problem and the problem for those of us who have to drive cars into Dublin by leaving many of those cars at car parks beside the M50 and travelling from there by bus. This has been considered, but now is the time to act. This needs to be done in order to relieve some of the chaos that exists.

Dr. McDaid

There are issues of planning and possible objections.

Mr. Crawford

I believe we have to start the process. Parking facilities close to those junctions could be found if there was sufficient desire to do so. It would be much easier to deal with that planning problem rather than widening streets or make other changes in the heart of the city.

Due to cutbacks in Iarnród Éireann, much freight has been taken off the railroads supposedly for commercial reasons. How much effort was put into trying to make that business pay? The 40-foot trucks that have been forced on to the roads are not only jamming up the rural roads, but also those in Dublin city. I welcome the fact that the Dublin Port tunnel is being built and hope it will be completed in the shortest possible time because of the indirect chaos it is causing. The issue of how goods are transported must be considered in a more practical and commercial way.

I return to the issue of cross-Border railroads. There is an interesting link between north Monaghan, Armagh and Portadown which should be studied and in which some people are already interested. We are looking at ways and means of trying to build structures which would reconnect communities on either side of the Border. A rail link between Monaghan and Portadown via Armagh would be extremely important for Monaghan town and the general north Monaghan area, which is losing many services, including, as the Minister will be aware, hospital services and its swimming pool. A railway link to Portadown would also provide valuable access to Belfast and Larne as well as the excellent rail service between Belfast and Dublin, which runs through Portadown.

Older people in areas such as Monaghan and Donegal cannot truly benefit from the free transport scheme introduced many years ago. It would be great if people over 65 years, many of whom are still fit and would like to travel, could avail of the scheme in their golden years. Unlike their fellow citizens in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Sligo and elsewhere, the people of Donegal, Monaghan and Cavan have no access to the scheme, except by availing of bus services. I hope the Minister will consider the proposal for a rail link between Monaghan and Portadown via Armagh in the context of available cross-Border funding, which could be utilised for infrastructural purposes.

A previous speaker referred to the need to retain all the rail bridges in areas where the railroads no longer operate or are unviable. An example of the possible difficulties this proposal could cause was the decision by Monaghan County Council, in its wisdom, to raise a road under one of the railway bridges in north Monaghan. As a result, contractors cannot get their machinery under the bridge to service the farms of the area. This is the type of pressure which could arise and may lead to some of these struc tures being removed. A little more common sense is required to ensure structures, which could and should be used in the future, are not removed.

I have already covered the chaos on the roads, especially in Dublin. One could ask what the link is between Dublin and the lack of railroads in Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal. Dublin is the centre of our business world. Those who want to reach Government agencies and Departments or use the airport must travel to Dublin. It is foolish that in the year 2003 we do not have a railway link between Dublin city centre and the airport.

When I started using the airport to travel to Europe in the late 1970s and early 1980s, one could park one's car on the footpath outside and I recall the late T. J. Maher, the former president of the organisation in which I was involved, the IFA, or NFA as it was then called, doing precisely that. The airport has grown beyond all our expectations and is the main link for tourists and business people travelling in and out of the country. On previous visits to Brussels, I could travel at minimum cost from the railway station adjacent to the airport to a range of destinations, whereas those who use Dublin Airport must take a bus or taxi or use their cars and this is causing chaos.

Given the substantial sums of money available, including European Union funds, we should build the rail link to the airport sooner, rather than later. It would create much easier access for those who have to use the roads and cut down on the number of cars parked at the airport, thus freeing up parking space for others. In addition, it would provide an immediate link to the Dublin to Cork line and the northern and western lines. This matter needs to be addressed quickly.

The previous speaker referred to quangos. I am concerned at the number of organisations, such as the National Roads Authority, which are not answerable to the House. I hope the new commission established by the Bill will be answerable to the Minister, the House and its committees. As matters stand, I cannot address a question, for example, concerning the Monaghan bypass, to the Minister, but must politely try to speak to the chief executive of the NRA. If the House chooses to establish new agencies, we must ensure they are answerable to the House.

Dr. McDaid

The commission will be answerable to the House and the committee on transport.

Mr. Crawford

I appreciate that because mistakes were made in the past. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and wish it success.

Dr. Devins

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important legislation which brings together many Acts that have come before the House, some of which date back as far as 1842. I welcome the fact that the railway safety commission will be an independent body. It is important this is the case. The functions of the commission are clearly delineated in the legislation. Its foremost role will be to foster and encourage railway safety, which all Deputies will support. More importantly, it will regulate and enforce safety and has powers to investigate and report on any railway incidents.

I have a minor query on the term of office of the commissioners. From reading the legislation, I understand they must serve not less than three years and not more than seven years and may not hold office for longer than 12 years continuously. Is this correct?

The commission has the power to engage staff, consultants if necessary, in the administration of its functions. In this age of financial rectitude, it is important the commissioners are given powers to recoup some of their expenses by imposing a levy on the railway companies. This is a positive development in that those benefiting most in financial terms from the railways will have an obligation to help fund the activities of the commissioners.

I also welcome the fact that the railway safety commission will have to draw up and publish a strategy within six months of the commissioners taking office and that this strategy must be updated and republished every three years.

While the function of the commission is to oversee railway safety, the Bill deals extensively with what are quaintly termed "railway undertakings." The railway companies, to which I presume the term refers, are obliged to prepare a safety statement or statement case. In other words, the railway must demonstrate it is aware of the risks involved in operating railways and the ways in which it is prepared to deal with them. I welcome this proposal.

A welcome proposal in the Bill is that the railway companies have to prepare a safety statement not just on their current rolling stock and railway lines but also in relation to any new stock or railway lines they propose to open. There is a common belief that many members of the public would take it as read that a new rolling stock is perfectly safe, and hopefully that is the case, but we all know from the dreadful tragedy involving the Colombia space shuttle that something new is not necessarily intrinsically safe. The preparation of a safety statement on new stock, therefore, and on any new railway lines which may be opened is a welcome development.

Under section 46 the railway companies are obliged to have their safety statement assessed by an independent suitably qualified person. In other words, they cannot simply cobble together a safety statement and submit it to the commission. Before they do so, the safety statement must be assessed by an independently qualified person which will help reassure the general public who use the railways.

Obviously the preparation of the safety statement will cost money. I welcome the proposal by the Minister that in the case of heritage railways, which may be operating on a shoestring, the com mission can help them in the preparation of their safety statement by the granting of some money. That is a welcome addition. Our heritage railways are an important part of our railway system and, as such, any help we can give them in the operation of their functions is to be welcomed.

Nobody wants to see railway accidents but, unfortunately, in the course of the railway system, they do occur. When these incidents occur the railway, under the terms of this Bill, must immediately investigate, prepare a statement and furnish that statement to the commission. The fact that the commission can then, at its own behest, investigate the accident and publish a report within nine months is to be welcomed. The provision whereby they can issue an interim statement on the accident before the nine months is up will also help allay fears if the accident involves serious loss of life or death.

The commission also has the power to set up a tribunal of inquiry in such cases where it deems it necessary to do so. That inquiry will have the legal standing of the District Court, which we must all welcome.

I also welcome the section which allows the commission to enforce all of the proposals contained in the Bill. It has a wide range of powers of enforcement which will reassure the members of the general public that when this Bill is enacted, we will have a railway safety system of the highest standing in the world.

Reference has already been made by some of the previous speakers to the railway safety advisory council. This is a good idea. It is very broadly based and the status of people who will be allowed sit on the council is clearly marked out in the Bill. I am particularly delighted that provision has been made for a member of the advisory council to represent those suffering from disablement of mobility. All too frequently, many of our public transport systems do not take into account people who may be suffering from physical mobility problems. The fact that they will now have a representative on this safety council is important.

Sections 81 to 88 in Part 9 deal with the use of intoxicants. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that both alcohol and drugs are widely available in our society. The insertion of all of these sections is welcome. It will allow the railway companies in the first instance, or the railway commission, to investigate and help any persons who are suffering from problems of intoxication, be it with either alcohol or drugs. I also welcome the fact that the identification of a potential problem may be solved by counselling. Counselling will be made available to anybody involved in the operation of railways, which might help nip a serious problem in the bud.

I welcome the publication of the Bill. I wish to refer to a railway which is very close to my heart, the Sligo-Dublin railway line which is 140 years old. Sligo station was first opened in December 1862. I would like to congratulate the previous Minister for Transport who made a substantial amount of money available to Iarnród Éireann to upgrade the facilities in the station. Sligo is about 130 miles from Dublin and it does not take rocket science to work out that if a train was travelling at an average of 60 miles an hour, it should be able to complete the journey in approximately two to two and a half hours. Unfortunately, the reality is that officially it takes three hours 20 minutes to travel from Sligo to Dublin. I say "officially" because frequently the train is late. That is unacceptable. The previous Government invested a significant amount of money in making available a continuously welded line which will help to give a better service. That welded line is almost finished and I thank the Minister involved for doing that. The reality, however, is that despite having this continuously welded line the rolling stock, both engines and carriages, belong to the dark ages. It is apparent that the stock used on that line has been used by Iarnród Éireann on some of the more popular lines in the country and when it is not fit for those lines, it is sent over to the west. That is unacceptable.

The service is not of a very high standard. The heating system in the trains frequently breaks down. If it is working, it is frequently fixed at far too high a level. There are virtually no refreshments available on the train, but another problem has been highlighted to me repeatedly by constituents living in Sligo town. When the evening train arrives into Sligo and passengers disembark, the engine has to be kept running all night. There is not a facility in the station to restart the engine. There is a very large hotel right beside the station – it was originally a railway hotel – and the noise from the engine running all night is causing great distress both to the management and the occupants of the hotel. It would be a simple matter for Iarnród Éireann to bring down a machine which could start the engine in the morning before the train leaves for Dublin. There is also the problem that this diesel engine is pouring out fumes all night, thereby increasing air pollution. For both those reasons, therefore, it is totally unacceptable that in 2003 the train has to be kept running all night.

At the beginning of this week I travelled by car from Sligo to Dublin and I carried out a small survey on the way up here. It is not terribly scientific but more in the nature of an observational survey. I decided I would count the number of articulated trucks I met coming in the opposite direction and in the course of a journey of 130 miles, and before I reached the outskirts of Dublin, I had counted 130 articulated trucks. That was virtually one truck every minute and a half to two minutes.

The movement of freight should be done in a much more aggressive and widescale manner by railways. That would help reduce the amount of large articulated trucks which appear to be taking over our roads. I am aware there are proposals before the Minister, some of which are very imaginative, on the movement of freight by rail. He should look at these proposals because any thing that can be done to increase the movement of freight by rail, taking it off our roads, would be welcome.

One of my constituency colleagues mentioned proposals for a commuter service from Ballymote to Sligo. The rail line between the two is only used four or five times a day and a commuter service would alleviate the traffic problems in the area while making financial sense by using the line more.

In 1862, when the Sligo station first came into use, there were three railway companies using it. The Midland Great Western Railway served the Dublin-Sligo line, the Sligo Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway served Enniskillen and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company served the west and north-west. Unfortunately we only have a Dublin-Sligo connection today. Many in the west of Ireland want to revitalise the area and reopening the Sligo-Limerick line, then hopefully extending it on to Waterford which would be a great boost to the economy of the area. There may not be sufficient passenger numbers to open the line but using it for freight would be of great benefit. The port in the south-east is one of the largest roll-on, roll-off ports in the country and the entire north-west could send freight in that direction. I ask the Minister to look at that in conjunction with Iarnród Éireann as it would revitalise the north-west.

I congratulate the Minister on this Bill. The most important person using the railway must be the passenger and the Bill ensures that the safety of the passenger is paramount. It does not pay lip service but puts a real safety statement in place. I commend the Bill.

Mr. English

We are lucky to have a fairly good record on rail safety, particularly in relation to major accidents, thank God. I am proud of that. Even though there have been some sad deaths over the years much work has been done to eradicate various black spots.

I welcome the Bill although, as Deputy Crawford said, it does not have great relevance to my area because there is a lack of rail services there. The Bill does what should have been done many years ago by putting down proposals in writing and getting procedures right. That will keep us all safe in the long run. A commission makes good sense also as it is better to have a separate body to investigate incidents.

I do not have much experience with rail safety but we should look abroad to see how using trains can make our lives safer. There seems to be a lack of investment in trains compared to roads or motorways. It is often said that the Government is having a love affair with roads. The Minister and Minister of State have done a lot of work since being appointed but I would like to see a policy which puts the rail system first. Maybe we will have to make choices between rail and road systems. I would choose rail systems but the Minister should make a firm stand on this issue.

One of the main features of rail safety is that it gets vehicles off the roads. If there are fewer vehicles on the road it is natural that there will be fewer crashes. We must recognise that. Rail is costly to run once it is built but it is worth it in the long run as it will save people's lives. This Bill and investment in the rail network will contribute to that process.

Many drivers crash due to stress or lack of sleep. The situation on a train is the opposite, as one sits back and someone else does the work. One can read the newspaper on the train whereas many people put on make up or shave while driving, so there is a safety issue involved. We should invest in rail to encourage people off the roads. Train drivers will not be allowed to drink or take drugs, which means they will be in good shape to drive the trains. Those in cars are always rushing for appointments but the train driver will not be rushed. He or she will have procedures in place and can stick to them. Again, this will encourage people to get off the roads.

I am disappointed the Bill does not deal specifically with freight transport. I am from Navan and we have little rail activity in Meath. We had some services a few years ago but some wise man closed it. A lot of money was invested in making the rail line from Kingscourt to Navan safer and I compliment the Government on that investment which meant gates and fences were put in place and so on. However, what happened when the work finished? There was no more freight and the rail line was closed. Where is the sense in that? We spend money on safety and then it is thrown to one side because it is not needed. Is there any way this line can be reopened and used? The Minister of State should look into this issue because if we had a freight depot somewhere in north Meath it would take a lot of lorries out of Dublin. Millions were spent on the rail line and it was then closed, which is crazy.

Dr. McDaid

There is a time element there. Thousands of lorries were involved.

Mr. English

I am sure there are reasons but was there ever a drive from Iarnród Éireann to go out and get freight business? From my investigations I sensed there was a feeling it was easier to let it off rather than trying to get business. I would like someone to try to make this work, even if it means bringing in salesmen to sell the service to businesses on a commission basis. We need to look at other ideas. In other countries businesses are well subsidised and given tax incentives to use rail services. I accept what the Minister of State says about a time element but this should be looked at. If the rail system was linked and received proper investment that time issue could be resolved.

There is a freight line from Navan to Drogheda which passengers are not allowed to use because, Iarnród Éireann officials inform me, the state of the line only allows trains to travel at a speed of 25 miles per hour. If that is the maximum speed nobody would want to take that train as one could cycle faster. However, investment would encourage people to take that train. I could talk all day about the benefits of rail travel but investment is the key.

I mentioned the lack of rail services from Meath but many commuters in the county would like to take the train. There is a train station in Navan but one never sees passenger trains there, only the odd train with material from Tara Mines. Those commuters drive on one of the worst roads in the country, from Navan to Drogheda, to get the train. That is a half hour drive at all hours of the morning to get a fast train which gets them to Dublin in an hour. This makes no sense. They are putting their lives at risk driving on that road and then at Drogheda, as Deputy O'Dowd and others pointed out, the train from Belfast is full and there is overcrowding. That day is gone. There will have to be more investment in carriages but I am told there is a two year waiting period for rolling stock, which makes no sense. There has been commendable honesty from the Government side in this debate and many speakers said they did not want old rolling stock in their areas. We in County Meath will take that old rolling stock if we can get some work done on our rail lines.

Regarding the rail-motorway divide, are the NRA and Iarnród Éireann working together? The NRA came to Meath in 1999 to start a motorway and everyone got excited. We asked at the initial meeting if a railway line could be put next to the motorway and were told it could not be done because Iarnród Éireann was two years behind in its planning and we accepted that. Two years later they came back with their plans for the road. We asked then if Iarnród Éireann could run a track beside it and they said "no" because the road did not turn at an angle that a railway could follow. We accepted that argument. After that they recommended that if a railway was to go to Navan, it would be a light railway line that could turn at any angle. That could easily have been planned along with the motorway but there was no incentive for these people to work together.

I am committed to the development of the rail network and want to see a workable and forward looking policy in place. This Bill will help but it would be more important if the rail network was extended. Meath should be included in any new rail plan because all the roads in the county are clogged. We must invest in rail.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the introduction of a railway safety commission independent of the Minister and Irish Rail. Rail safety is very important. In my county there was a serious accident where a well known nun was killed on a level crossing last year. At the time the Minister stated that Irish Rail was behind in addressing safety at level crossings. It is vital that measures are introduced.

Reports by the railway safety commission will aid that process. The reports must be as rigorous in their examination of safety issues as the reports of other institutions of State, such as the report of the Inspector of Mental Hospitals each year. They are totally different areas but the same standard of investigation and recommendation should apply.

Investment in rail safety has been neglected through the years, as have the railways. We might talk about rail safety but it is a relatively safe way to travel when compared to the roads. Investment in the development of the railways is not just an investment in safety, but an investment in the economy and it takes traffic off the roads. It should be a more economical way to travel but currently it is very expensive. I am appalled at the idea of removing freight from the railways. It should be a national objective to encourage the development of the freight service. There was much more movement of goods by rail than by road 25 years ago. I was involved in the meat sector and 80% of our product was moved by rail from Limerick. If we do not develop that infrastructure, we will regret it in the way we regret the closure of lines in the 1950s and 1960s. We now understand how wrong that was.

We should think about opening railway lines in commuter areas. In County Limerick there was a line between Limerick and Foynes which passed through Adare and Patrickswell. These are large commuter areas that will grow, thus increasing traffic into Limerick. A commuter railway should be examined and the option made attractive to people so they could leave their cars at the Patrickswell or Adare train stations.

There has been criticism of overcrowding on the trains on the Cork-Dublin train, which also stops in Limerick. People complain of having to stand, particularly on Monday morning as the students return to Dublin. There is an early train at 5.45 a.m. from Limerick specifically aimed at the students but there have been complaints from those in the Charleville area that there is overcrowding and that they have to stand. On Friday evenings and Monday mornings it is common to see people sitting in corridors and between carriages. That is not good enough for people who pay their way and support the rail network. People should support that network but it must also be a two way process. Travelling must be attractive, reliable and value for money. It is much cheaper to travel from Limerick to Dublin by car than by train. The train is now quite expensive and, as a result, less attractive.

The services on most lines are quite good. I have no complaint about the services from Limerick but we are lucky that there is a Limerick service and we can also link to the Cork service at Limerick Junction. There are services that I cannot criticise but there are difficulties elsewhere.

Dr. McDaid

A total of 80 rail carriages have been ordered and some of them will commence service on the Dublin-Cork line soon.

Mr. Neville

I welcome that. It will go some way towards relieving the difficulties I have mentioned. We must make travel attractive and reliable. Those are the keys to developing the service.

The difficulties experienced by train drivers who have been involved in fatalities have not been mentioned. I know Iarnród Éireann has programmes to deal with the trauma of drivers who experience a death. Deaths in nine cases out of ten are suicides. I am aware of the trauma experienced by drivers and service people generally, such as doctors, psychiatrists and anyone who deals with people who have experienced death by suicide. Train drivers are extremely traumatised when something like that happens. We do not often think of how deeply it affects those who deal with such deaths. People often feel extremely depressed or guilty that they could have anticipated it or tried to avoid it. It may be illogical, but that is how they feel.

People are concerned about the families of the person who committed suicide. It is important to recognise the need to assist people, particularly train drivers who are often faced with the extremely traumatic experience of someone taking his or her life by throwing himself or herself in front of a train. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the type of facilities which are available for such people and how many people avail of them. Perhaps hew will tell us if the people who use the service have evaluated how it has helped them to deal with an extremely difficult problem.

I welcome the Bill. I look forward to the establishment of the commission and to the reports which will be the most important element. I hope they will be laid before this House. The key determinant will be the response of the Minister and of Iarnród Éireann to the recommendations in the report. While the commission is independent of the Minister, the ultimate responsibility for rail safety rests with the Minister. Sometimes we hear complaints about organisations taking power away from the House. Ministers are not responsible for our national primary and secondary roads system; that responsibility lies with the National Roads Authority. Rail safety is the ultimate responsibility of the Minister. He must ensure that adequate investment is available to provide a safe service. I urge the Minister to comment on the reports we received last year about the programme by Iarnród Éireann to ensure safety at level crossings.

Mr. Stanton

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. I did some research on the Internet before I came into the House and I discovered that the Bill has received international praise. We should acknowledge something good. I have studied the Bill which is well thought out and includes many good provisions. Our function is to comment on the provisions of the Bill and on what should be included in it.

I am glad there have been few rail incidents. Rail transport is a safe way to travel. There have also been few incidents where people who work on the railways have been injured or killed. However, when something goes wrong on the railways, it has the tendency to go very wrong. That is why it is important to be extra vigilant as far as rail safety is concerned. We cannot afford to take shortcuts or to penny-pinch when it comes to rail safety. I commend the Government in that regard. I welcome the amount of money which has been invested in rail safety and the importance of such investment because it was long overdue. The public cannot see the work which has been done because it has been done on the rail infrastructure. People could say that little is being done, but a lot has been done. I want to give credit where it is due.

Perhaps the Minister will give us an overview of the Government's policy on railways. Other speakers alluded to that. Does the Government see the development and expansion of the railways as a priority? Is it part of Government's policy? Has the Cabinet discussed the railways and has it made a decision to expand the rail network? Is it trying to encourage more people to use the railways? We will be left in limbo if that is not done because we need a clear statement of Government policy and action in that regard. We would welcome a statement from the Minister in that regard.

Dr. McDaid

It tends to be simplified. We could have an entire debate on rail freight only.

Mr. Stanton

That is vitally important. That is why we need a clear statement of Government policy. We need to educate the public about rail safety. Perhaps the new commission could be given responsibility for that. I welcome the establishment of the railway safety commission which is a good move forward. It is good to hive off areas of speciality from Departments. However, I am concerned about the commission's accountability to the House and to the electorate through elected representatives. Many bodies have been established, but they cannot easily be held to account through the democratic process. Many people do not bother to vote in elections because they do not believe it will do any good. Accountability to our Parliament is being diluted year after year. Ministers, who are the only people with power in this democracy, should examine this issue to see what can be done to restore accountability. Ministers must also be accountable. That is at the root of our parliamentary democracy. If we continue to dilute that, the people will abstain from voting and will make their opinions known in other ways.

This is a very serious issue. I ask the Minister to indicate whether, in the event of an incident occurring on the railway system, he can give information to Members by way of reply to parliamentary questions. That is the least I would expect. All other bodies and quangos should also be accountable in the same way. Information should be made available through the relevant Minister in response to questions in the House. That is most important.

Part 2, section 10 of the Bill provides for the commission to enter into agreements with the national authority for occupational safety and health. I welcome that provision. Would it be useful to include the EPA also in that context? A previous subsection indicates that it is possible but I believe it should be mentioned specifically. Since many toxic substances are carried on our railways, it would be useful if there was a formal linkage with the EPA in a similar manner to that which the NHSA will have under this Bill. I ask the Minister to consider that. If it has already been considered and a decision taken not to include the EPA, perhaps the Minister will inform the House of the reasons for that decision. In case of rail incidents or accidents involving toxic substances, the advice of the EPA should form part of the commission's thinking and should be readily accessible.

Under Part 5, the thrust of the Bill is that investigation of railway undertakings will, in the main, be carried out by the railway undertaking itself. There is also provision for the commission to carry out an investigation if it wishes. Is the Bill strong enough in this area? If an accident or incident occurs, is there not a difficulty in having the railway undertaking involved being the body responsible for carrying out the investigation? Should that not be tightened up so that the commission would have a direct role, a hands-on involvement in investigating all incidents in some way? Perhaps there is a level after which the commission will get involved. I ask the Minister to clear up that important point in his reply to the debate. While I do not suggest it would happen, there may be concerns that a railway undertaking might not carry out a fully satisfactory investigation in the first instance. That should be avoided.

The Bill also provides that it shall not be the purpose of an investigation to attribute blame or liability. I question that provision, which is a rather unusual one. If there is a reason for it, perhaps the Minister will outline it.

I welcome the proposed railway safety advisory council, the establishment of which is a very innovative move. In relation to appointments, especially with regard to the three members of the commission – this relates to the issue of accountability to which I referred previously – it would be useful if the Oireachtas committee charged with overseeing transport matters was involved in the appointment of those commissioners. What I have in mind is that when a Minister appoints people to a State board, he or she would have the support of the relevant Oireachtas committee in an open, transparent and above-board process.

I am not suggesting a form of US Senate investigation or tribunal but rather that the Oireachtas committee would be informed that the Minister intends to appoint, in this case, three people to the commission. The Minister would outline his reasons for those appointments and the qualifications of the proposed appointees and the committee would discuss the matter. That would reassure the public of a more open approach to such appointments. There is a feeling – I know it does not happen with the Government – that friends of the Minister might be appointed to the commission. While I know it never happens, we should endeavour to avoid the possibility. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that suggestion, which I have put forward on previous occasions. The former Minister for Public Enterprise, Senator O'Rourke, indicated that she was amenable to that approach and that it would come about in the context of Dáil reform. However, Dáil reform now appears to be very far away.

Part 10 of the Bill refers to works on public roads adjacent to a railway. There has been an alleged incident in relation to a railway line over a tunnel in Dublin. Those provisions of the Bill are crucially important in that context. What is the position in relation to other works that are not on public roads adjacent to railways, such as building or mining works or the laying of cables? Is that covered in this Bill? I may have missed the detail but it is important that such matters should be covered in the Bill.

Other colleagues have referred to overcrowding on trains. As a frequent traveller on trains, I am very conscious of that problem. Often the train to Cork is very overcrowded at certain times, with people standing in aisles and in areas between carriages, even to the extent of obstructing the food trolley. In the event of a train having to stop suddenly, people could be catapulted in all directions. I welcome the Minister's statement that new carriages will be provided. That is long overdue and perhaps the Minister will inform the House as to when those carriages will be in operation. I also welcome the provision in the Bill for the commission to investigate new rolling stock.

Dr. McDaid

The new carriages will be in operation from summer 2003.

Mr. Stanton

From this summer we will have new rolling stock on the line to Cork. Perhaps on the Government's next visit to Cork, it will travel by train. I hope overcrowding will not be a problem by then but it is a big issue now. I have seen older people standing in overcrowded trains. On one occasion, a lady who was standing near me in the area between carriages on the Cork train informed me she had had a sleepless night during her visit to her husband who was ill in a Dublin hospital. There should be a policy of encouraging passengers to give up their seats to older people and signs to that effect should by displayed in train carriages.

Currently there are speed restrictions on many sections of the rail network. Will the Mini ster indicate the duration of those restrictions? I know the restrictions are for safety reasons but they can result in a considerable increase in journey times.

It would be remiss on my part to speak on this Bill without mentioning the reopening of the rail link to east Cork. I know the matter is on the Minister's desk at present and I urge him and Iarnród Éireann to make a decision as soon as possible. The county development plan for Cork is totally dependant on the reopening of that rail link. The county council has more or less developed the county plan around the possible reopening of the rail link. When the delegation met the former Minister, Mary O'Rourke, she said she would not give the go-ahead for the opening until the council zoned land close to the railway line. That has been done and we still have not got a decision about the reopening of the rail link. If the rail link to east Cork does not reopen, the county development plan will possibly be unworkable and may have to be reviewed and changed. The county council has, in fairness, carried out its side of the bargain. It has zoned the land and developed planning so that a reopened rail link would be used. I understand from what I have heard that the report into the feasibility of the reopening of this rail link to east Cork is positive and I would ask the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, to use his good offices to speed this matter up. It has been going on for quite a number of years. I was elected to this House over five and a half years ago and it was one of the first matters I raised, and it is still ongoing. There have been feasibility studies, reviews and all kinds of other studies since then. The time as come to state whether or not it will reopen, and to move it on from there.

This issue is linked with the development of Kent Station in Cork. Kent Station is an old station which needs major upgrading and there are safety issues involved. When one gets off the train, there is a drop down to the platform and the intercom on the train advises passengers to be careful. There is a drop of one foot and a gap of one foot, and one must be careful not to fall between the train and the siding. Kent Station needs to be upgraded from a safety point of view and I would argue that should also encompass the reopening of the rail link to east Cork.

There is significant demand for trains in Cork. People want to use the train rather than drive. More people would use the train if we had the proper facilities but, as the Minister of State said, we will have them next summer.

Dr. McDaid

May I clarify that point? There are rail cars and rail carriages. The new rail cars will be operational within the Cork suburban area this summer – that is what I thought the Deputy was referring to – but the carriages will not be available until 2005.

Mr. Stanton

The carriages for the Cork-Dublin line?

Dr. McDaid

That is right.

Mr. Stanton

I am glad the Minister of State cleared that up because I was expecting him to arrive in Cork in a glittering new carriage next summer and now we must wait until 2005.

Dr. McDaid

They are ordered.

Mr. Stanton

The Minister of State may not be in office in 2005. There might be a change – one never knows.

The other related issue to do with rail safety is the need to encourage rail development, which was the point with which I began, from the point of view of environmental protection. The more people we get on trains and out of cars, the less pollution there will be. I think that is the case. If it is not, perhaps the Minister of State can say so. It means that there will be less pollution and less stress. I welcome the progress in Dublin on the development of the Luas, metro, etc. I look forward to that process speeding up and to the day we will see these new important services in operation.

I also welcome the reference to heritage railways in the Bill. That is an important part of our heritage. From a tourism point of view, the development of heritage railways would be useful. There are parts of the old rail network lying idle all over the country. If we can encourage even voluntary groups to open those up and use them for short periods, it would be useful for tourism and would be welcome. Perhaps the Minister of State would tell us if the Government has a policy in this area and if it has identified any sections of railway which might be used in the near future.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Mr. Stanton

I welcome the Bill. There are a few issues addressed in it which I have already said I would like to see tweaked. It is a good Bill, however, and I do not see any problem with it. I wish it well on its passage through the House.

Mr. Boyle

This House should be concerned with the notion of rail safety and we should welcome any legislation that purports to bring that about. It is fair to say that rail safety is of a higher standard than road safety. There is an onus on many of us in public life to constantly promote the message that it is safer to travel by rail than by private motor car. The still appalling road death statistics year-on-year would seem to indicate that is the case.

There are of course incidents in our folk memory of when rail safety standards were not as they should have been. The appalling disasters at Buttevant and Cherryville Junction spring to mind. Thankfully such events have happened infrequently and have not been repeated on a regular basis.

However, there is a catalogue of incidents of a more minor nature, some of which are even comical, such as runaway engines in railway stations and minor derailments. There are also accidents external to the rail network itself. The sad death of Sr. Joan Bowles, a well regarded community working in Limerick city, at a manned railway crossing in Limerick last year need not have happened. There is still too great a reliance on these types of crossings within our rail network and I would hope that the Government would not only promote the idea of an independent agency to highlight and prevent incidents of that nature, but also put in place infrastructure which would do away with the need for manned railway crossings.

It is worth noting that when the railway network was developed in the 19th century we reached a stage where Ireland had proportionately the most heavily railed network in the world. We dismantled that piece by piece in the 20th century. Sometimes that has been presented politically as something of which we should be proud. There are stories told of Tod Andrews meeting a delegation from west Cork to discuss why the west Cork railway was being closed. He challenged them on how they travelled to Dublin and, as they had travelled by car, then asked: "Why is the railway not being closed?" The fact is that story was never told in its proper context. People used the easiest method of getting to their destination because the existing rail service was deliberately run down, and we have seen examples of that ever since.

There has no extension of rail services in the past 30 years. There have been efforts to get back on track, if the House will pardon the pun, in terms of the quality of the existing network, and they have to be welcomed, but much of that was necessary. We are engaging in a high profile and costly exercise of introducing continuous welded track throughout the country but if we did not do that, we would not have a rail system on even our existing network.

The Government has failed to say where it will provide extra services, in terms of extra trains running on the existing tracks or the reopening of the tracks which exist elsewhere. When I see that happening my party and I will start to believe that the Government is serious about rail as an alternative to road transport.

We can even see this in the levels of funding that the Government has put aside in the now discredited national development plan in terms of transport in general. The road to rail ratio in the NDP was 2:1. As a result of Government decisions which have been made subsequently, that ratio has further increased in favour of roads and against rail. It is now 3:1. The Minister of State can check the figure with his colleagues if he wishes. That is the reality.

Even in the case of the money put aside for rail in NDP projects, there is an unusual distribution of the sums being spent. Two thirds of that money is being spent in the greater Dublin region to provide new rail services in the form of the Luas, metro and enhancing the existing DART and suburban rail services. The rest of that money is being spent on the national safety programme. The Government is saying that if we get new rail, it will be in the greater Dublin region. We will not get it outside Dublin. The only thing we can and will do outside Dublin is bring it to a safety standard which it should be at anyway. That sends out the wrong messages with regard to what the Government thinks about rail as a system of transport and how it thinks people in this country should get around. We have a radial system of rail whose spokes radiate from Dublin. If we were serious about rail transport, we would have a circular system where people could get on trains to travel from Cork to Limerick or Galway. That is not possible at present.

Dr. McDaid

We cannot do everything at the one time.

Mr. Boyle

We have not done it in 70 years.

Dr. McDaid

We have to prioritise. Three projects are costing €800 million of the €1.2 billion available and the port tunnel takes up most of it. Nobody would argue against being able to get from the M50 to Dublin Port in six or seven minutes through the port tunnel. That is what we want.

Mr. Boyle

We have put forward an argument against the port tunnel. The incident that compromised rail safety in recent weeks as a result of work on the port tunnel means there are questions as to why that is being done and what it will achieve. The port tunnel is a good example. If even a partial diversion of the spend on roads and roads projects was made into a better and enhanced rail system, it would be a better use of public money. There is no argument against that in economic terms. The money is there but the Government has chosen, and been supported by other parties in the House both in and out of government, to pursue a policy where roads are deemed to be several times more important than rail. When legislation is introduced relating to rail safety people should be made aware that rail is a Cinderella service and that safety is to be provided not because it enhances the service but because there is a moral responsibility to do so.

The Government continues to send out wrong messages about people living outside the greater Dublin area having the option of transferring from road vehicles to rail. Even where the services exist there is such a wide variety in the quality that it further compromises the willingness of people to adopt the rail system and generates questions about its safety. Members have referred to the quality of the Sligo and Westport services. I am relatively fortunate to be from Cork South-Central because it has the pre-eminent rail service in the State. However, even with that service it takes two and a half hours to travel 160 miles which, in international terms, is relatively slow. Nevertheless, it is a good, comfortable and safe service. The priority of the Government should be that all rail services should be of that standard. However, I do not see that as a priority.

The establishment of an agency that is independent and will monitor, inspect and bring about better standards is a good thing and the Government will be supported on it. There are fears however that, given the debate taking place at present over whether the State company responsible for public transport in this country needs to be broken up into component parts, this might be the thin end of the wedge. Once there is an independent agency, what is to stop the model that has been pursued so horrendously in Britain being adopted in Ireland? Will there be a separate company with responsibility for the rail track, a separate company with responsibility for the train stock, separate companies with responsibility for different rail lines and services on them, a Dublin train service and a train service outside Dublin, in the same way as CIE has been broken up into different companies?

This is the Government's mindset. I was a member of the public transport partnership forum and I am aware of the nature of the debates that have been taking place for several years in the Department of Transport and, formerly, the Department of Public Enterprise. That debate refers to efficiencies through competition, the ultimate fallacy in terms of public transport, especially public transport that is based on safety. If one wants a public transport system in which people can have confidence and which is fully integrated, the last thing one needs is a competition model where the companies that are providing the transport are competing with each other on cost grounds. They are constantly looking at profit margins and how they can be increased by compromising, where possible, on essential spending such as safety.

Dr. McDaid

So we leave it as it is?

Mr. Boyle

We can talk about models. For example, the French model is unified but the management is put out to contract every several years. Perhaps it is the system of management used in public transport that will improve its quality. My party strongly believes that any attempt to bring about the nonsense of competing public transport companies and systems, while pretending it is possible to have an integrated system that will have the public's confidence and will be safe, will not happen. It is never-never land politics. This Bill, while it deals with an important aspect of that debate, introduces elements we should be aware of and that we should not let develop to a further extent.

Dr. McDaid

One is public transport in the rural parts of the country and one is public transport in the city. How are they competing?

Mr. Boyle

That is the same argument that was used in Britain. It was said that one was track, one was rolling stock, one was geographically based, one was providing services in the south-west and one was providing services to the north-east. Any service that is provided can be broken up in those terms. Imagine if that logic was applied to the health service. Why not have competing services for pediatrics, geriatrics and oncology? A critical mass is needed in the provision of vital public services. The idea of breaking them up into small components so they can be sold to the highest bidder, who then uses them for commercial gain, does not serve the public good. The Government must be made to understand that.

Other elements that have been mentioned include the rail network that is not in use for freight or passengers, although we would argue it should be. Mention has been made of heritage rail. On one level it would be good to see such lines being put back in use. They would have a tourism value. However, I would counsel against that. If lines can be used for that purpose, that is fine but we should not let a potential extension of the rail network become some type of theme park. The idea of our railways being run into the ground so we can have playthings for tourists who come to our country for three months in the year is not something we should be trying to promote. The Minister's county is the only county in the country without a rail track but historically it would have had lines from Derry to Dungloe. I have heard that said in the past.

My family is also from Donegal and I do not see why there should not be a rail connection from Dungloe to Derry and a connection to an all-Ireland grid.

Mr. McGinley

There was one in Arranmore.

Mr. Boyle

The poverty of thinking in transport policy is the Government's biggest flaw. There are vested interests. The people who have a roads-biased policy are the people who benefit from the existence of roads. They have managed to capture the debate and deprave the language to such an extent that we build roads and the subsequent expenditure for repairs is not seen as a subsidy. However, we also build rail but every subsequent penny spent on the system or any other form of public transport is seen as a subsidy. If we are not even accounting for that money properly, how are people to know what the true comparisons are? The cost of building a stretch of road is many times more than the cost of building the same length of rail. The cost of maintaining a length of rail is many times less than the cost of maintaining a similar stretch of road. If the Government is serious about public expenditure, it cannot allow these inconsistencies to continue.

My party will support the establishment of an agency but we will put down a marker about the broader agenda of breaking up the public transport company into competing interests.

We do not believe this will serve the public good or consumer interests, nor will it strengthen consumer confidence in the safety of public transport. If that is what the Bill intends to do, the everyday reality of Government policy is working very much against it.

Mr. McGinley

I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, is wondering what prompts me to speak on the Railway Safety Bill 2001. Deputy Boyle suggested that Donegal is probably the only county in Ireland without a rail service, but I think the same is true of the county, Monaghan, in which the Ceann Comhairle lives.

The Bill deals with an important subject. Anything to do with safety while travelling is very much in everyone's interest. Those of us who have to depend entirely on the road network to travel know the importance of safety. The Minister for Transport has initiated a fairly successful road safety campaign over the past few months and I credit him and the Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, for that. The campaign is yielding some positive results in terms of a reduction in fatalities in the few months since it was introduced. It is only right, proper, logical and practical that a rail safety campaign be run in conjunction with what is happening on the roads. It is an opportune time to introduce a Bill of this kind.

The main purpose of the Bill is the establishment of an independent railway safety commission, which will be made up of between one and three members. I do not know how a commission of one would operate, so I assume there will eventually be three members. I presume that one of the three will serve as chairperson. Will the chairperson be appointed by the Minister or will it be a collective decision of the commission? The main responsibility of the new commission, according to the Bill, is the maintenance of safety for passengers. As other speakers have noted, we have, thankfully, had relatively few serious rail accidents in this country in recent years. Nevertheless, we can never relax our vigilance. If the Bill is going to improve the situation, it is certainly welcome.

We read about horrific rail tragedies in other countries, including those on the underground and rail networks in Britain in recent years. There have been tragedies in Europe and many other parts of the world. We have a responsibility to do everything possible to avoid such accidents in this country.

I cannot recall the last occasion I had an opportunity to use the rail system in this country, but I do recall using the system in England. The Minister of State, Deputy McDaid, would understand that rail travel is not feasible for those leaving Donegal to travel elsewhere in the country. If one wants to travel to Dublin by rail, one must first travel to Derry and then pass through Belfast and other parts of the country. The trip takes the best part of a day. The same is true for Sligo. We have all heard from Deputies in Sligo and Leitrim about the condition of the line to the west. It takes almost as much time to get from Sligo to Dublin by rail today as it did when the railway was established well over 100 years ago.

The commission will have a great deal of responsibility and has much ground to make up. It will be responsible for the quality of the rolling stock, including heating, seating, restaurant refreshments and so on. Hardly a week goes by without one reading in the newspapers of the bad experiences of rail passengers. I read an article recently about a passenger travelling from, I believe, Tralee to Cork who indicated that they had encountered Third World conditions on the train. Much is left to be desired in terms of the quality of what is provided for passengers at present.

It is no wonder that there are greater demands than ever upon the road network. There have been vast improvements to that network, but when I, like the Minister of State, travel from Donegal to Dublin, the journey still takes as long, despite the improvements to the N2 and A3, because the volume of traffic has increased. People do not see the railway system as a viable or acceptable alternative.

I referred earlier to the situation in my county. I am glad the Minister of State is present because he lives in the county and knows what is happening there and how much people suffer both in terms of access to the county and access between places within it. It is a peripheral county and depends greatly on access for industry, for the people of the county and for the development of tourism and other services. In last week's allocation for non-national roads Donegal received €25 million. However, following a question tabled in the Dáil in recent days, it was revealed that when the allocation is measured per kilometre, Donegal came only 12th in the country. In a county without rail or, at present, even an air service, a higher priority should be given to a road network upon which we are completely dependent.

The Minister of State is probably aware of a renewed interest in assessing the feasibility of reopening some of the old rail networks in various parts of the county. He is also probably aware that this was raised at Donegal County Council in recent weeks and that a motion was passed. All councillors, including those from the Minister of State's party, were in favour of investigating the feasibility of opening a number of rail links from Letterkenny – his home town – to other parts of the county, including, in particular, the town of Burtonport. I understand that the council has established an in-house planning committee, made up of engineers, council employees and others, to examine the feasibility of doing something along these lines.

It is possible to reopen rail lines in Donegal. I visited Fort William in the north of Scotland two or three years ago. I do not know whether the Minister of State has ever been there, but there was a beautiful, very efficient line from Fort William out to Mallaig on the west coast. One can take the train from Fort William to Mallaig and then get the ferry to the Isle of Skye and have a very pleasant day there. If one does not feel like coming back on the ferry, one can cross the new bridge by public transport. That is just an indication of what can be done. I understand that line has been reopened in recent years, so it is possible.

When it comes to counties like Donegal, where old rail lines are still in existence, it is important to maintain these routes and not let them be developed or discarded. The lines should be retained in the ownership of the State in case, sometime in the future, we are in a position to reopen some of them.

There is a renewed interest in railways throughout the country.

Debate adjourned.