I propose to share my time with Deputies Kenny, Ring and Reynolds.
Private Members' Business. - Rail Service: Motion.
That is agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to provide the necessary investment to upgrade the national railway network with continuous welded rail, automatic signalling and adequate rolling stock to ensure a safe, reliable and efficient public transport service.
The purpose of this debate is to refocus the Government's priorities to ensure there is a completion of the investment plan in the development of our railways. The background to this motion is that under a co-financed EU National Investment Programme the railway lines from Belfast, Mullingar, Galway, Limerick, Tralee, Cork and Waterford, respectively, to Dublin have all been or are in the process of being modernised. However, three national radial routes have no such investment programme: Dublin to Rosslare, Mullingar to Sligo and west of Athlone through Claremorris to Westport and Ballina. It is estimated that the cost of providing continuous welded rail, concrete sleepers instead of the wooden ones and automatic signalling on these routes is approximately £85 million. That is comprised of approximately £25 million on the Dublin-Rosslare line, £30 million on the Ballina-West-port line west of Athlone and £25 million to £30 million to complete the Dublin Sligo line from Mullingar to Sligo.
The fundamental choice facing the Government is to gradually close down or modernise those lines. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot maintain regional access to those provincial towns with a less safe, less reliable service than is deemed appropriate by the relevant experts. This issue has been put into sharp focus by the recent accident at Knockcroghery in County Roscommon. Thankfully and fortunately there were no fatalities. If the accident had been a couple of 100 metres further along the route or if there had been a full load of passengers, as is common at the weekend, the outcome might not have been so fortuitous. I greatly fear that, unless there is a modernisation programme on the network, further accidents are waiting to happen. That is because many of those routes were originally constructed in the middle of the 19th century and were last modernised in the 1930s. It is conventionally accepted that a rule of thumb life expectancy of those jointed tracks is of the order of 50 years. Metal fatigue at the fishplates requires daily inspection under the present outdated track facilities. Where the fishplate wears off there can easily be a derailment.
Over the last five years there have been nine derailments. One of these was caused by a broken spring in one of the carriages and, therefore, was not track related. Of the remaining eight, all occurred on jointed track. Last Sunday evening at 8.20 p.m. there was a further freight related accident on the Athy-Carlow route. It involved a freight train and fortunately no one was injured. Will the Minister tell us what she knows about that accident and the outcome of the early indications of the probe into it? I understand that the rail line has reopened and the track has been replaced. It is worrying that another accident, this time on the Dublin-Waterford line at Bestfield, has occurred.
Not only is there a threat to passengers, there is also the question of freight. Many dangerous substances, such as ammonia, are carried on our railways. There was a recent derailment in the late summer at Glasnevin in Dublin when a train carrying empty ammonia tankers derailed and crashed. If those tankers had been full and the accident more serious, there would have been a national emergency.
The purpose of this motion is not to make a political football out of the railways. It is accepted by all parties that the fundamental case for railway investment is agreed on the basis of meeting our national overall transport policy objectives. Specifically in this regard, it would relieve further congestion on the roadways and meet freight objectives. Our railways are a crucial aspect of social, community and regional policy. It was also accepted at the time of the £275 million co-financed EU investment programme that there is a justifiable investment case for separating investment in a permanent way from investment in rolling stock and the day to day costs of running Irish Rail. By the same token, buses carrying road passengers or hauliers carrying road freight are not expected to bear the full cost of their permanent way, namely the national road network.
The Minister for Public Enterprise has promised to establish an international consultancy study to review railway safety. That is urgent and necessary, not only to overcome the problem where effectively the sole authority on railway safety here is Irish Rail and, therefore, procedures are somewhat internalised, but also because it would provide the basis for prioritising the investment needs into the future.
There is no provision for the investment for which I am calling in this year's Book of Estimates, the budget or in any Operational Programme set out for the expenditure of Structural Funds up to the year 1999. The opportunity was missed in the mid-term review in July and August of this year to switch further investment into the railways to complete this investment programme.
Given that approximately 40 per cent of our railway network is over 50 years of age, this problem can only worsen in time. I know many Deputies from the affected constituencies, who are committed to the maintenance and development of the fabric of rural life consider this a fundamental issue of priority investment. The alternative consequences of failure of the Government to respond positively to this motion are clear-cut. It will mean that the railway service to those affected areas will have to slow down to remain safe. That will affect the reliability and efficiency of the routes. It will result in lower passenger numbers and a clear spiral of uneconomic decline. Therefore, by stealth we will have a terminal decline of those railway routes and that should not be allowed to happen.
As a Wexford Deputy, I am particularly concerned about the lack of attention to the Dublin-Rosslare route and there are a few special features in this regard. European authorities have already designated the Rosslare to Larne road route to be the euro route with number one priority in the country. Given that Belfast to Dublin on the parallel rail route has been upgraded and that the DART exists from Dublin to Bray and will be extended to Greystones, it is imperative that the rail route from Greystones to Rosslare is upgraded. There is a strong commercial case for this given the extent of urban and housing development in the peripheral Dublin area which requires a commuter service to meet its needs. We all know the cost of housing and accommodation in Dublin is prohibitive to many people working in our capital city and its environs. The reality of this extends right through from beyond Greystones down to Arklow, whereby on a daily basis people commute Monday to Friday to and from work in Dublin. It is imperative this route is given priority, not only for those reasons but also because of the growth of Rosslare Port in terms of passenger and tourism development and that port is owned and operated by Irish Rail.
We cannot wait for an horrific event to act as the catalyst for Government action. Too often Government is in effect crisis management, whereby issues come to the top of media and public attention and are responded to with urgency and resources. Now is the time to try to avoid such an occurrence on our railways. We need planning and the investment structure put in place to ensure that the future of our national railway network is secured. The latest CIÉ Annual Report shows that there were almost 28 million passenger journeys in 1996. There is great scope for further growth in this premium form of travel. Cost cutting, viability reforms, better management, greater focus on quality and consumer concerns all play a part in ensuring a vibrant and viable national railway service. All of this will be impossible without a secure, safe and reliable permanent way.
This issue will not go away. There is an onus on the Minister to approach the Minister for Finance and bring a memorandum to Cabinet. She must discuss the possibility of getting a fairly modest allocation of resources in this area with Commissioner Monika Wulf-Mathies, the transport director and person with responsibility for infrastructural funds.
I could come to the Minister with a fanciful list seeking to upgrade the track from Claremorris to Galway, from Foynes to Limerick and Ballybrophy and from Limerick junction to Waterford through to Rosslare. However, I have modified my request. I realise there are constraints and the Minister did not set out the co-financed EU programme. As she is aware, part of the pleasure of being a Minister is that when the music stops responsibility falls to the Minister for this area and it is she who will be ultimately held responsible if an accident occurs. If there is an accident, Irish Rail will say it outlined its requirements to its parent Department, formerly the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications and now the Department of Public Enterprise.
I hope this motion is seen as constructive and timely. One could debate the railways in the context of the very large annual subvention they receive. I know there are economists in this city who believe the railways should be closed down. We have a low density of population and an economic case cannot be made for all our railway routes. Therefore, the case must be made on the basis of regional policy and political priorities in terms of community access.
If a European, American or Japanese investor were to consider locating a manufacturing industry in a particular area, rail routes are one of the issues they would consider. Many industrialists do not look beyond Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Galway. We must ensure the decline of the railways is not allowed to continue. An Post no longer uses the railway service whereas in the past it used it for certain types of deliveries. The port in Waterford, a huge lo-lo facility linked to Bell container traffic, has closed down. There is a need to generate new business.
In the context of the Turf Development Bill, the Minister will recall an interesting proposal on waste disposal between CIE and Bord na Móna which will I hope generate new freight business. A fundamental prerequisite to all of this is a permanent and satisfactory rail system.
It may be false but there is a rumour in circulation that old sleepers from lines which are being upgraded particularly the Dublin-Belfast line are being used to maintain some of the western tracks. Apparently this is called "cannibalisation". It is bad enough not having concrete sleepers——
I am not aware of any such practice.
Perhaps the Minister of State at the Department of Public Enterprise could get some information on the matter. I am told that if rolling stock comes off these sleepers they will crumble like matchsticks. God forbid that such a thing would happen.
I am trying to deal with this issue in a dispassionate manner. However, this is a fundamental issue for my colleagues who hail from the affected areas of Ballina, Westport, Claremorris and so on. In my former role as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, I listened on a daily basis to people's fears about the flight from the land, population decline in rural Ireland, post office closures and so on. Rural communities are under threat yet the quality of life there is unique in Europe and many aspire to it. Further decline of the railways can only be seen as a fatal blow. The buck stops with the Minister. The Government can and should accept this motion and implement its proposals without further delay.
I thank Deputy Yates for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this motion which is of importance in a general sense countrywide but in a particular sense to the west of Ireland. I realise the Minister, Deputy O'Rourke is a very practical politician who understands the needs and fears of the ordinary people. She is newly appointed to a very important Department. This issue is fundamental to the legacy she will leave behind her.
I have served in this House for more than 20 years and have used the rail service for most of that time, with the exception perhaps of my own period in Government. I believe in the rail transport system as a system of transport for freight and people. It is possible to move more passengers per hour by train than by any other method of transport.
The rail map of Ireland over the past 150 years has contracted. There have been a series of closures arising from economic factors over the past 50 or 60 years. The west Clare line, the line from Galway to Clifden, the line from Westport to Achill, the line from Claremorris to Ballinrobe and the line to Donegal have all been closed. Were these lines to be available now they would be unique and would generate a massive amount of finance in local areas in the area of tourism. However, that has not happened.
Irish railway lines are reminders of a very sad period in our history. Pictures of railway stations in the black forties and fifties with emigrants leaving home carry very special and poignant memories for many people, particularly those in the west of Ireland.
I will confine my remarks to the western line, specifically to the Dublin-Galway, Dublin-Sligo and Dublin-Westport-Ballina lines. Deputy Yates has outlined various costings for these. The Dublin-Galway and Dublin-Sligo lines will cost approximately £30 million and the Dublin-Westport-Ballina line will cost in the region of £25 to £30 million.
Galway is one of our major metropolitan areas and as such a decent rail line to Galway is very important. The plan for the Galway line will be implemented over a three year period at the rate of 20 miles per year. By 1999, there will be a fine line of continuous welded rail with concrete sleepers going into Galway. That will provide the administration of Iarnród Éireann with the ability to provide a decent, efficient, comfortable, fast and safe service.
EU funding only applies as far as Mullingar on the Sligo line. I recall a Private Members' debate in this House some years ago during which former Deputy, Ted Nealon, produced the original timetable for the Dublin-Sligo train which showed it travelled the distance in a faster time then than it did on the day the debate took place because the quality of the line was inferior. There is also the Dublin-Westport and Dublin-Ballina line at a cost of £30 million. Some would argue that if the Taoiseach can give £20 million to Croke Park, which is a laudable effort to support——
The Deputy cannot oppose that.
I support the Gaelic Athletic Association and always have. However, the equivalent amount would complete a great deal of that line and these priorities should also be examined.
Iarnród Éireann has been given a subsidy of about £100 million per year or £1 billion per decade so it should not deliver an inferior service to some parts of the country. The problem with the line is the quality of the track. The quality of a railway track is determined by whether it has continuous welded rail and concrete sleepers. I do not know if concrete sleepers were manufactured 50 years ago, but Deputy Yates is correct to point out that if secondhand equipment is used, a first class modern service will not be produced. The two priorities are continuous welded rail and concrete sleepers. The Minister must bring a memo to Government pointing out the priority that must be given to this line and money must be made available in a projected plan over three or five years to upgrade it.
The inferiority of the line is not due solely to wooden sleepers and inferior track. It is also due to the size of the engines. Iarnród Éireann purchased a number of new engines about ten years ago. They have a long lifespan but they are so heavy that, when running at full power, they destroy the line. On sections of the western line, for example, these engines must travel at a maximum of 50 miles an hour, which results in an inferior service. I do not know if the Minister has travelled on the Westport line on a Friday evening but it would be a useful experience. She should visit Heuston Station and make the journey unannounced——
I would have to wear a mask.
The new railway station in Athlone was built on the east side of the river. If any structural damage ever occurred to the bridge across the Shannon, the rail service to Galway, Westport and Ballina would be wiped out.
The Minister has a responsibility to bring a memo to Government about this matter. I accept she will examine it seriously but it requires Government clout and political commitment. People who use the western line are as prepared to pay for the service as customers on other lines. When I asked a question in the House after the accident occurred in Knockcroghery, I tried to quote from an advertisement for the "gold service" on the southern line. According to that, the traveller has space for fax machines and laptop computers and can conduct his or her business in comfort. The train was compared to a cushion of air. The same does not apply to the wind rushing in one's face on the western line. If one can drink a cup of tea, not to mind use a laptop, one must have a considerable degree of athletic expertise. There is a faster service on the southern line and people are prepared to pay for it. People on the western line would be prepared to pay for the same service.
Iarnród Éireann is managing badly the number of passengers it is carrying and it will never know what revenue it has lost. If there is a good, efficient rail service that is competitive and safe, people will use it in huge numbers. This will lead to a reduction in the number of cars on the road, lessen the necessity for operations such as operation freeflow in Dublin, avoid having tired and over-stressed motorists driving long distances and allow people to do business on the train. The country could operate in a more efficient and professional manner. Iarnród Éireann does not look to young students, thousands of whom travel on these trains, as the business people of the next generation who would use the train service if a good service were available.
I do not understand why one cannot contact one's local railway station and book seats in advance. One must turn up at the station. If there is a big occasion, such as an All-Ireland final or semi-final, there will be thousands of people on the platform and a mad rush to scramble onto the train. There is no understanding of safety standards. Overcrowding does not appear to constitute a safety hazard on the trains because if they are overcrowded they are still deemed to be safe. If the Knockcroghery accident had occurred further down the line where there are high embankments, there would have been serious loss of life despite the fact that the carriages on the line are good quality.
I do not understand why the administration of a railway system does not anticipate such situations. Mayo has been in three All-Ireland finals in 12 months and each time thousands travel on the train. Many more are unable to get tickets for either the match or the train. The train is usually grossly uncomfortable. The trolley service cannot operate. People who should not be on the train are allowed to travel on it while the disabled who must use wheelchairs are obliged to stay in the junction space between the carriages which is highly dangerous if there were an accident or a shunting of the carriages. That is not good enough. I commend the Minister on her work on safety guidelines. They must be brought forward as quickly as possible.
The staff of Iarnród Éireann are competent and committed to the rail service but they are demoralised because they are the butt of so many jokes. Remarks about derailments and trains being late are regularly heard. However, the problem is that if something small goes wrong on the western line it causes tremendous difficulty throughout the area. The train from Westport to Dublin usually arrives in Heuston Station on time on Tuesday mornings. The train back to Westport, however, is invariably much later because of delays on other lines and so forth.
Is it true that almost 45 coaches are under repair in Inchicore? It appears the craftsmen in Inchicore operate an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. business so there are insufficient coaches for the tracks. Forty-five coaches could provide almost five trains. These coaches should be out on the tracks and used for the purpose for which they were intended.
I have been in Heuston Station on many occasions and it is a sight to behold each Friday evening. It would do the Minister the world of good to go there one Friday evening, even if she does not travel on the train.
I have often been there on a Friday.
A phalanx of people, even the last few sprinters from the bar who arrive there with flushed faces, rush to get onto the train before the doors are slammed shut. That should not be the O'Rourke legacy or "the O'Rourke special"——
The O'Rourke dash.
About £15 million is to be spent on Heuston Station. As it is the central or radial station, there must be efficiency and space and the ability to move people through it quickly. God forbid that this problem in Heuston Station should continue into the next century. It is not good enough that in 1997 there is still the same mad rush along the line in the hope of getting a seat.
There is huge scope for Iarnród Éireann to conduct its business efficiently. The company is genuinely anxious to do that but it needs help as it does not have the capacity within its own resources. The Minister must bring a relevant memo to Government. I believe she will have the support of her colleagues. The Tánaiste was in Castlebar yesterday to open a huge American plant and she was enthusiastic about the effect of the tiger economy on the county. We want to hear the O'Rourke line on the matter. The Minister understands what is required. We will see if the Government is as flúirseach when she presents her memo as it was last week. I look forward to the Minister's reply and to her dealing with these issues so we get a line which will give an efficient, fast, safe and comfortable service in keeping with the modern Ireland which we pretend exists.
I thank Deputy Yates and Deputy Kenny for sharing their time. I have a long association with Irish Rail. My uncle worked for the company for 47 years and owns the Railway Tavern beside the station in Westport. I do not want to be critical of Irish Rail, although I have been involved in rows with many of its staff. However, I thank the staff who have to work under difficult conditions — people like Tommy Browne, who features in an advertisement for Irish Rail. He has that smile 24 hours a day. I have seen him under pressure from the public when a train might be an hour or an hour and a half late. However, he is always nice and courteous to customers. I also compliment the station master, Anne Elliot, who has improved the service on the Westport line.
She got a prize.
Yes, one which was well deserved. A previous station master had the same opportunities but was not as friendly to the public and did not do anything with the station. She won prizes in both Westport and Castlebar. I congratulate her and ask her to keep up the good work.
That is women for you.
I ask my colleagues who were in Government and those in Government previously why there were no Structural Funds for the Westport and Ballina to Dublin lines in 1994. Perhaps the Minister can answer this question. Although she lives in Athlone, I know she has nothing to do with my next question. Why is the new station in Athlone on the Dublin rather than the western side?
I will tell the Deputy about it later.
Deputy Yates was right to ask whether Irish Rail has made a decision to run down its service so the Minister will have no option but to close the line. I know she will not do this because she is a strong Minister. I ask her to go to Cabinet and put her mark on this line by obtaining the necessary funding.
The funding which Iarnród Éireann receives is not spent in the west. It looks for funding for the western line but will not spend money on it. They will not spend it on the carriages or the service. I heard the Chamber of Commerce representative, Peter Shanley, on radio recently. He uses the line on a regular basis and said it is a good service, but with bad trains and a bad track.
A colleague of the Minister's told me he came up from Cork today on the train. He missed the first two trains of the morning but got a third one. We have no such luxury in the west. There is one train which leaves at 6.35 a.m. I stopped using the service because I can never estimate its arrival. I might have a meeting and I cannot be sure that train will be on time. I used it on All-Ireland day and I told the station master I will never do so again. I got abuse from the public about what politicians should do about the line. I wrote to the area manager that the service was a disgrace that day and he responded with the same excuses.
The problem is there has been no investment in that line for many years. I raised with the Minister the accident which happened a few weeks ago and a number of speakers have referred to it. We were lucky we got a warning a serious accident would take place. It would be unfair if in the future this problem was put on the Minister's desk. On that Saturday morning, we were lucky the train derailed where it did and that there was a small number of passengers. God was on our side but that may not be the case the next time an accident like that occurs.
The people of the west are aggrieved when they see Structural Funds spent on roads on the east coast, Luas and thousands of jobs announced every week. There is nothing for the west. The rail service is not satisfactory because the people of the west have lost confidence in it. They are afraid to use the service because of what happened a few weeks ago. I ask them to give the service a chance. It is important we use it because we do not want to lose it. The service is a major link between Dublin and the west. It brings thousands of tourists to the west.
Deputy O'Rourke understands rural Ireland and as a Minister is in a position to do something about this matter. The funds are there, as we saw in the budget last week. I ask her to make a political decision which I will thank and congratulate her for. If she says this Government will provide funding for the Westport to Dublin line, I will be the first person to welcome her to the station in Westport and give her a civic reception.
The Minister and I had words about this issue a couple of weeks ago. I spoke about the Sligo to Mullingar line rather than the Sligo to Dublin line. The Mullingar to Dublin line works and the Sligo to Dublin line is not in good condition. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about the Irish rail service. I was lucky enough to go to Germany a year and a half ago where I was brought on a tour of the rail network, especially where new infrastructure was being constructed in East Germany.
It was fascinating that the German Government, which is known to have promoted excellent infrastructural development, first put down a new structure of rail lines. The railway stations and carriage services were the second and third matters to be looked after. Some of the railway stations were appalling but the German Government decided that if there was a proper line facility the trains would run on time. We are doing it the other way around. We are spending £15 million on Heuston Station. Obviously the rail line from Cork to Dublin is excellent, but there is difficulty with the rail track in the west. The only way the line will be maintained is if there is capital expenditure on the track.
Safety is also in question. If the consumer does not have faith in the rail service, he or she will not use it. Economies of scale will be brought to bear where adequate numbers of people will not use the service. As my colleague Deputy Yates said, the most economic solution would be to shut down the service. This will happen if we do not inject capital expenditure into the rail lines between Westport, Sligo and Dublin. I used the Sligo to Dublin rail line in the past few weeks. I expected to be in Dublin at 11 a.m. but did not arrive until 12.30 p.m. If the public cannot rely on the service they will use their cars. However, we are trying to take cars off the streets in Dublin city, and the only way we can do that is by having a proper rail service.
Overcrowding on trains, particularly at week-ends, must also be addressed. It is extremely dangerous, and it is unfair that fare paying passengers, including elderly people, have to stand for up to two and a half hours. Much work has to be done. I request the Minister to go to her Government colleagues to get capital expenditure on the rail tracks, particularly in the west, as soon as possible.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all the words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"welcomes the £275 million programme of investment in the renewal of railway track, upgrading of signalling and replacement of rolling stock, co-financed by EU and national resources, being undertaken in the period 1994 to 1999 and notes that studies are already well under way to determine rail investment requirements for the post-1999 period and welcomes the decision of the Minister for Public Enterprise to commission an independent consultancy study into all aspects of railway safety."
I welcome the spirit in which the motion was put forward. I appreciate the comments of Deputy Ivan Yates, the chief Opposition spokesperson and Deputies Kenny, Ring and Gerry Reynolds. As each of the four who spoke put their railway credentials on the line, it is proper for me to do the same. I was brought up within 50 yards of Athlone railway station. It was our playground. The stationmaster and his family and our family were the closest of friends. The noise of the trains and the constant shunting of the railway carriages and goods wagons were the fondly remembered noises of my childhood. The operation of the railways and the safe carriage of people is paramount in my brief.
I welcome the helpful input by Deputy Yates when we spoke on radio. My mind was moving in that direction, and what Deputy Yates said was interesting. Deputy Spring and I also spoke on the matter on the Adjournment here. Nobody has received wisdom on everything, and the suggestions and interventions of others help to clarify one's mind.
This Government, in its Action Programme for the Millennium, has identified investment in the mainline and suburban rail network as one of its key priorities in the transport area. As Minister for Public Enterprise, I am committed to delivering on the Government's objective in a structured and orderly way with the aim of delivering safe and efficient railway services in a cost effective and competitive manner.
The railways have shown a steady growth in passenger numbers in recent years with over 8.3 million passengers using the mainline service last year and over 19.5 million using the Dublin suburban services. I am determined that these passengers should be able to travel in safety on good quality rail services.
Investment is certainly an essential component, but not the only one. The successful conclusion of the necessary change and restructuring negotiations, currently under way between Iarnród Éireann unions and management, is also a vital cog in improving the company's efficiency, reducing its costs and generating the internal resources necessary for the renewal of its assets. The introduction next year of public service contracts will transform the financial relationship between the State and the company. They will give the company a much more stable medium-term financial framework, while at the same time placing an emphasis on payment for performance. The company also needs to place much more emphasis on identifying and meeting the needs of its customers. It has to think of itself as the provider of an important public service, balancing this with the need to be increasingly commercial and market driven in its approach. Above all, safety has to be a paramount consideration in all the company's activities. A culture of safety needs to be pervade the company from top to bottom.
Now that I have set that broad context, I want to focus on two particular aspects — railway safety and investment. To echo what has been said here and on previous occasions when we debated the Knockcroghery derailment, all the glitzy words, advertising and everything that goes with it are subservient to the need for safety. The train derailment at Knockcroghery was potentially very serious. We do not often invoke God in this House, but I thank God it did not turn out to be so. Equally, no method of transport is wholly safe. The most perfect system of continuous welded track, with the newest carriages, the best technology in signalling, the most modern level crossings, the most well-kept railway stations and the most excellent personnel are all important in the running of railways. However, even with all that, one cannot guarantee full safety on any method of transport whether it be train, bus, rail, car or ship. There are inherent hazards in making a journey, but that has to be allied with CIÉ's very fine record of safety, second in the European league pro rata with population and numbers travelling.
Before dealing in detail with these two important issues, I want to make it clear that I will not be rushed into decisions because it is politically expedient. I want to establish the facts clearly and precisely. I will set out details of the studies which are to be undertaken in both the safety and investment areas which will provide an objective and coherent basis for decision making.
Deputies contributing to this and other recent debates emphasised the importance of safety in the operation of the railways, and it is appropriate that they should do so. Safety is a paramount consideration in the provision of rail services, and rail travellers rightly assume that they will arrive safely at their destinations. Accidents on our rail system involving fatalities or serious injuries are very much the exception. Indeed we are fortunate in having one of the lowest rail fatality rates in Europe.
Serious rail accidents are all the more shocking by virtue of their rarity. They are a reminder that no one can give guarantees of absolute safety on the railways or any transport system. They also serve as a timely warning against complacency and can provide valuable opportunities to reassess equipment and procedures with a view to minimising future risks to passengers and rail staff. However, there have been a number of rail accidents in the recent past which have been the cause of some disquiet. We have been fortunate that the number and extent of casualties have been small — the last fatalities happened some years ago — but if circumstances had been different, they could have been more serious.
Iarnród Éireann has a statutory responsibility for ensuring that our rail services are operated safely, and I wish to inform the House once again of the company's assurance that safety is its main priority. Securing the safe operation of railways is a primary factor in determining how the company uses the financial and other resources at its disposal, including the considerable level of annual Exchequer support which goes towards the costs of maintaining the rail infrastructure and operating rail services. Achieving acceptable levels of safety on the railway is a complex task which involves the interaction of a range of factors and affects every facet of the company's operations. Experience has shown that although investment in new equipment and in the proper maintenance of existing equipment is vital to safety it is only one element in the company's overall safety strategy. A comprehensive approach is essential to ensure that safety is accepted and pursued as an organic part of railway operations, irrespective of the financial resources available to Iarnród Éireann at any time.
Deputies will recall that I had occasion to address the House in recent weeks following two separate passenger train derailments. We were very fortunate because neither case involved a fatality or serious injury. I share the concern of all Deputies about the implications of accidents of this kind for the overall safety of the railway system. I was in regular contact with Iarnród Éireann about those accidents and one positive message I took away with me was the company's acute awareness of the crucial importance of rail safety. The company considers safety to be a primary objective which it must continue to pursue as an integral part of its everyday business, and not something which depends on external intervention, such as ministerial intervention.
Nonetheless, and without taking away from the continuing efforts being made by the company to identify and address any areas of weakness, I advised the House on 18 November that I considered the time to be ripe for an external review of Iarnród Éireann's rail safety policy and practice. I propose to appoint independent consultants to carry out a strategic review of rail safety. The consultants' brief will require them to consider, by reference to appropriate international benchmarks and local considerations, the adequacy of Iarnród Éireann's existing safety policy, systems, rules and procedures and the company's arrangements for implementing safety rules and procedures on the ground. They will also consider the adequacy, from a safety view-point, of the existing railway infrastructure and facilities, including track, signalling systems, rolling stock and level crossings. In short, the consultants will examine all aspects of railway safety — infrastructure, policy and practice.
On the basis of their professional judgment, the consultants will be required to provide clear, precise, quantified and objective advice as to whether the overall level of railway safety is adequate. They will be asked to identify three categories of unreasonable safety risks: urgent, medium-term and long-term. Their advice will be sought on any additional safety implications which might arise from increased service frequencies or higher speeds on the rail network. They will also be asked to review the role, responsibilities and functions of my Department's railway inspecting officer.
The aim will be to have the review completed within six months of the date of appointment, provided that this is consistent with meeting the overall requirements of the review. The consultants will be selected in accordance with EU public procurement rules, which means a minimum notice period of 52 days for possible applicants. If, in the course of the review, the consultants identify any matter which they believe gives rise to safety risks so serious as to require immediate attention they will be required to bring it to my notice in advance of completing their final report. It is imperative that this is done. The consultants' report will be published.
Approximately 12 to 18 months after completing the report, the consultants may be required to report on the progress which has been made in implementing their recommendations. To assist that progress report, the consultants are being asked to ensure that their recommendations are, as far as possible, expressed in concrete terms which can be measured or quantified.
I presume no pun is intended on the word "concrete".
No. This is a time of transition for Iarnród Éireann. New investment is being made in infrastructure and rolling stock and new services and service standards are being offered to customers. Meanwhile, the company is negotiating with its workforce on restructuring proposals necessary to secure its future in a changing environment. All of these developments have very important implications for the safe operation of rail services and it is vital that progress on safety standards should keep pace with, and not be compromised by, this process of necessary change and development. While that task remains a responsibility which only Iarnród Éireann can discharge, the external safety review will be of major assistance to the company in its ongoing efforts to enhance the safety and attractiveness of the services it offers its customers.
I now want to turn to the second theme, rail investment. It is worth noting that during a period right up to the end of 1980s — Governments of different hues and persuasions were in office during this time — financial constraints led to significant under-investment in infrastructural renewal and asset replacement in the railway. In I993 the investment needs for the entire railway network were estimated at approximately £800 million over a 30 year period. It was recognised in the Operational Programme for Transport, which covers the period 1994-9, that the railway required an integrated investment and development programme. This was needed to maintain and improve competitiveness, to sustain existing demand and to create the potential for a shift in demand and modal split towards the railway in the future.
It is important to note that the first major investment programme in the renewal of the rail network was initiated by the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Cowen, and the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern.
With the full support of the Labour Party.
Yes.
It could not have been done without us.
The then Taoiseach and Minister for Finance successfully negotiated the first substantial rail renewal programme as part of the 1994-9 Community Support Framework and Operational Programme for Transport.
Total investment in the mainline rail network over the six years will amount to over £275 million. Priorities for investment were selected in many cases after comprehensive cost benefit analyses had been carried out by CIE and independent consultants appointed by the European Commission. As a result, the current investment programme is being focused on track renewal, modern signalling systems and rolling stock. The work being undertaken will result in increased safety, lower operating costs and shorter journey times. This is a significant level of expenditure by any measure. The programme represents the best use of available funds.
It may be helpful to look at the main components of the investment programme. Total investment on track renewal alone will amount to about £150 million. Two-thirds of this expenditure is being co-financed by the EU and Iarnród Éireann, while the remaining one-third is being funded from Iarnród Éireann's own resources, which includes the annual State subvention. This work will include extensive replacement of jointed track on timber sleepers with continuous welded rails on concrete sleepers. This was the nub of the contributions from Deputy Yates and other Deputies. Deputy Reynolds said that the first initiative undertaken during the revitalisation of East Germany was the construction of the permanent way. All of the principal lines radiating out of Dublin benefit from this renewal expenditure, including Dublin to Cork, Belfast and Limerick; Portarlington to Galway; Dublin to Sligo; Kildare to Waterford; Athlone to Westport and Ballina; Mallow to Tralee and Dublin to Rosslare. It will also mean that the poorest quality rails are being replaced. For example, in 1995 some 60 miles of the network comprised of what are referred to as 95 pound flat bottom rails. These are being removed as a matter or urgency with a view to completing their replacement in the next two years.
Work is also ongoing to replace the outdated mechanical signalling system on mainline rail routes with a modern, cost effective and centralised control system. Significant work will be done on the Galway, Sligo, Tralee and Waterford routes. As a result, these lines, as well as those to Cork, Limerick, Wicklow and Dundalk, will be equipped with modern signalling by 1999. The new enterprise service between Dublin and Belfast was launched on 21 October. The Commissioner travelled on the train from Belfast to Dundalk where she disembarked in order to view certain projects. She was very taken with the fine service which is important not only from the physical element of North-South relations but also the psychological element. The new service provides evidence of the standards which can be achieved to meet passenger demands. It included upgrading the track, station improvements, improved signalling and rolling stock replacement. While the motion refers specifically to rural areas, in the operation of Iarnród Éireann it is necessary to look at the overall picture.
In regard to DART there are four further distinct suburban rail services in the greater Dublin area serving Dundalk, Arklow, Maynooth and Kildare. Together they carry 20 million passengers per annum and will benefit from an investment of almost £40 million. Much valuable work has been done, but I am conscious that the rail network still has substantial long-term investment requirements. The current programme is drawing to a close and the investment of more than £275 million by 1999 will be a magnificent contribution to the improvement of the network. However, much more remains to be done.
I emphasise the importance of having the full facts before making important decisions. We need to have a very clear view of expenditure requirements and of priorities. We need to consider track renewal, signalling and rolling stock. We must also consider the economic factors such as likely passenger demand. In recent months I asked CIE to prepare detailed investment plans for the mainline and suburban rail networks in the context of securing EU or other funding in the post-1999 period. I hope to have its report early in the new year and that will provide the basis for determining the future rail investment programme. The EU demands figures of an economic return on railway investment, as it did with roads — I remember debates in this House on county roads, to which all rural Deputies contributed — and we will make a coherent play for the equivalent of investment in county roads to upgrade our railways. That matter will be rigorously examined in the context of EU funding after 1999.
Work is under way in regard to mainline rail investment needs. My Department has stressed to CIE the need for a comprehensive study of mainline rail investment needs covering track, signalling, rolling stock and stations. This study will include an examination of overall policy in regard to rolling stock purchase. That will help determine the appropriate balance between investment in the traditional locomotive hauled trains or in railcars, which are successfully used in other countries.
While we are in the middle of an extensive modernisation programme, we obviously cannot replace all our existing track and signalling systems overnight. This means trains will continue to run over older tracks, and it is important that they do so subject to appropriate safeguards and without compromising operational safety. This is a normal feature of Iarnród Éireann's existing operations. The tracks in question are subject to regular twice weekly inspections and where necessary remedial work is undertaken as part of the company's overall rail maintenance programme which cost £26 million last year. I have been assured by the company that there would be no question of allowing trains to operate under conditions which are considered to be unsafe.
The overall picture must be considered, including systems and procedures, rather than simply the infrastructure. There is always the danger that as re-equipment proceeds there might be a tendency to rely unduly on hardware to ensure safety, and that would be a great mistake. Unfortunately, accidents still occur on rail systems more technically developed than our own. This underlines the importance of an intrinsic safety culture throughout the railway company. Everybody, and everything that is done, must be guided by considerations of safety. Otherwise no amount of hardware will prevent accidents happening. I am anxious that attention to this fundamental, if unglamorous, aspect should continue to underpin Iarnród Éireann's safety policy and practice in the future.
Railways have served this country well over many years and through difficult times. In preparation for this debate, over the weekend I brought home many books from the Library and the Department about railways, internal disputes, amalgamations and railway mania, which was experienced in post-famine Ireland. It was believed that in the successful completion of tracks, railways would be beneficiaries of an economic miracle. I read extracts from local papers, from the local board of guardians who set out their requirements in terms of a rail service. They met in conclave and made great demands, requesting a service to many remote areas.
The story of railways is one of service, constant difficulties and constant need for investment. One hears about the successful operation of railways in countries such as Canada, but in those countries there are huge populations and trains travel long distances. Since Ireland is a small country, we have a small population and remote areas must be serviced. There has been need down the years for rural regeneration and to keep people on the land, hence the need for a proper transport system. With public service contracts people see where their money is spent. There must be proper investment in railways, but investment has not matched up with the requirements, except in 1984 when we set up the operational programme for railway investment.
We have a huge economic debt and we must take account of subsidies paid to the holding company, CIE, particularly to Iarnród Éireann. Following the unanimous declaration that safety is the primary objective, we have an opportunity to set out all those matters in a properly planned programme. In a public debate on RTE I acknowledged the safety review. Deputy Yates and I were in convergence on that issue and I welcome his helpful attitude. Deputy Spring was also helpful in that regard.
The Government is committed to continued investment in the mainline rail network to secure its long-term future. We are also committed to safety, as is evidenced by my decision to proceed with an independent review. I reiterate the importance of having the facts on investment and safety requirements before making decisions. I have set out a prudent course of action which involves proper studies of both issues. I hope this will lead to better decisions and I ask the House to support the approach I have adopted. I have circulated in the House the terms of reference of the safety study.
I thank Deputy Yates for introducing this motion and the Minister for her excellent amendment which praises the actions of the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government which provided investment in this area.
I am a strong supporter of public transport and believe it is possible to provide an efficient, customer-focused, cost efficient and environmentally friendly public transport system. The rail system is an integral and essential part of such a system, particularly as we have forced a large section of our population to live in a semi-circle around the capital city. Arising from that forced population move, there has been bad planning but areas of low density population need services. We are faced with the conundrum of providing a service on a cost effective basis to areas with limited numbers of people.
If we are to provide a cost effective, efficient and customer-focused service, we must provide proper infrastructure, a modern track and signalling system and new carriages, locomotives and stations. If we do not do that either through the private sector or the public sector we will have a less than desirable level of infrastructure to provide the efficient service the paying public will demand.
During the period of the last Government, some £275 million of EU and State funding was provided for the development of the rail system. That compared with £28 million in the period of the previous Government, during which time more money was spent on the Lucan bypass than on the entire railroad system. That new motorway is ineffective. It is similar to a slow moving car-park. It takes approximately one hour to travel five miles, similar to the rate of travel of the old horse and carriages for which the cobbled streets were designed. That is the speed at which cars are travelling on the very expensive super motorways we have built.
An underfunded rail system runs each side of that motorway, but people cannot get on the trains. We must examine the value of the motorway versus the alternatives. The southern and western lines that run practically parallel with the Lucan bypass have not been developed to the point where they can be used effectively. The Minister stated that approximately 20 million passengers use those lines per annum, but they could be used to a far greater extent. Arising from our planning decisions to locate large sections of our population outside the capital city, there is a huge catchment of commuters who must travel to and from Dublin every day, but our railway lines are not capable of taking them.
The Minister's Department and CIE have prepared a plan to upgrade the Maynooth-Connolly line at a cost of £48 million, much less than the cost of the ineffective Maynooth bypass. The Maynooth-Connolly line is operating at about half its capacity because of the condition of its single line and the difficulties at Barrow Street. Upgrading that line would allow twice as many passengers to travel quickly, efficiently and cost effectively to and from work in an environmentally friendly manner. It would also relieve the gridlock on the nearby motorway.
There are approximately 1,400 miles of railroad in Ireland, 465 miles of which need upgrading. The cost of upgrading the main lines would be approximately £330,000 per mile compared with £6 million per mile of motorway. We must examine our priorities when allocating money in this area. Because of the decisions of the former Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the former Government, there is a large amount of money available for upgrading railways. We must ensure this is only a first tranche of funding, not a final tranche. I was pleased to hear the Minister announce details of a plan in that regard.
The wooden sleepers and plated rail track need to be replaced with continuous rail and concrete sleepers. We also need to replace the scarce rolling stock. Some new rolling stock has been provided and more is ordered, but I understand we need 100 new carriages and 30 new locomotives to provide a maximum service for the paying public. The total cost of the upgrading identified as necessary, not including branch lines, would be approximately £350 million. That is a large sum, but it is relatively small compared with what is spent on out roads each year. The standard of approximately one-third of the existing track is less than the standard required, and this gives rise to speeds as low as 25 or even five miles per hour. It is not possible to provide a cost effective or efficient service in such circumstances. It is certainly not possible for Iarnród Éireann to provide a customer-focused service. It is severely handicapped by our collective neglect over many years to provide the funding necessary for infrastructure, signalling and rolling stock on our railways.
It is essential that the Government devises a plan for the future development of our rail system. It must find the money and make the case for the investment of £350 million in that system. The chief executive of CIE, Mr. McDonell, made a strong case for the separation of the roles of service provider and infrastructural provider. The Government provides roads for others to use. People pay a charge for using roads in the form of car tax but the Government makes the investment. Yet, we expect Iarnród Éireann, the rail transport company, not alone to carry out the transport work but to provide the railroad. This puts Iarnród Éireann at a huge disadvantage compared to commercial road users such as hauliers and passenger carriers. Other branches of CIE are at an advantage in comparison to Iarnród Éireann in that regard.
In looking at future plans for the development of CIE the Minister should include the possibility of providing a separate company.
For the permanent way?
There should be a road construction and maintenance company for the provision of the permanent way, which is separate from the service provider that gets passengers from A to B. They are two different functions. The Government should principally be involved in funding the permanent way. This case has been made and is worthy of examination. The chief executive of CIE has a vested interest in hiving off something that is very expensive from his point of view and which does not provide a return. That said, he has made a cogent case that should be examined in some detail.
The Minister referred to the development plan for Iarnród Éireann. I fully support it and ask her to develop it as soon as possible. It will assist the Minister and the Government in making the continuing case to the EU for further funding. The roll on of funding after 1999 will be required to assist with the necessary investment of the £350 million that we can now identify. From a financial investment point of view we have a dangerous situation given the time lapse between having the money available to invest and using the existing railways because the cost of maintaining old tracks will grow. The older they become and the more they are used, the higher the cost of maintenance will be. The faster we can get the investment money in place the better because there will be a compound saving.
I know the difficulties the Minister has. By and large, she is tied with the amount of EU funding up to 1999 and cannot make a case for funding within that period. However, it is important to have the case well prepared in advance of 1999.
I compliment the staff and management of Iarnród Éireann. I do not know whether the Minister did because I missed the beginning of her speech.
I did.
They are probably the most maligned group of people in Ireland.
Yes.
With the tools this House, as owners of the company, has given them over the years they have done a fantastic job. They do not have enough trains, track or signalling and — I am culpable in this regard — there is no detailed Government plan for their future. We are all culpable in that regard and I am not trying to avoid blame. However, even with these defective tools, the staff and management of CIE have done a very good job in providing public transport.
Government and Opposition should be at one in ensuring that the best possible case is put together and presented not alone to CIE itself but also to the European Union which is strongly in favour of the development of the rail system. I know that from my time as a Minister of State in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. The EU will look favourably on viable plans that are prepared and presented to it for funding.
I do not want to meddle with the current negotiations on the viability plan. I believe progress is being made on these negotiations, which have my full support and good will. I hope they can come to a speedy and successful conclusion. However, for a really effective result to these negotiations it is imperative for the Minister, or the Department on her behalf, to be involved. I said this when I was a Minster of State, although I was not heeded then and may not be heeded now. The Minister is the owner and it is virtually impossible for a plan to be prepared, produced and presented without the direct input of the owner.
Then I would be accused of interfering, as the Deputy knows.
The Minister has a good precedent in the ESB. In that case, the representative of the then Minister was sitting at the table all the time. That representative may not have liked the job, but that does not make a whit of difference. He will do what the Minister tells him to do and on that occasion he did it very well. As owner of the company the Minister should be involved on behalf of the wider public. To have a whole plan devised, drawn up and given to the Minister with a ribbon on it creates a democratic deficit.
I agree.
If the Minister wants to — as they will say — meddle in the affair, she will have my full support as well as that of the trade union movement in CIE. The unions are well aware of the Minister's positive intentions towards the public sector companies. I will say as much to them on any opportunity I have to do so. The Minister should consider that possibility.
I welcome the Minister's decision to set up the independent consultancy study on aspects of railway safety, which is timely. I want to disassociate myself, however, from the scaremongering about safety on our railways. We have a had a few minor accidents at low speeds but our railways have a safety record second to none. There has been one death on the railways in 14 years compared to 6,000 road deaths in the same period. It is irresponsible for Deputies or anyone else to display pictures of trains with mud on them and claim that accidents are waiting to happen. That is dangerous stuff and will simply drive paying customers away from rail transport.
It will drive people off the trains.
That is the very point I am making. It will frighten people unnecessarily. I am not suggesting that this study should not go ahead because it is time for it to do so. It is a long time since something like that was done. It is a perfect response to this motion and to the speeches that have been made. In fairness to the Minister, she gazumped the Opposition with this proposal.
Iarnród Éireann has safety as a top priority in all its planning. For example, the company's ultrasonic examinations of low speed tracks can detect micro-cracks which can be dealt with immediately. The company will reduce speeds to safe levels given the known condition of tracks. If the tracks deteriorate to a point where they are no longer safe, Iarnród Éireann will not allow trains to run on them. I welcome the Minister's initiative on safety. The reports she will receive from it with the plan she is preparing for CIE will strengthen her case to the European Commission for the required, necessary and desirable funding that will give us an efficient, environmentally friendly, customer focused and cost effective rail transport system.
Debate adjourned.