Vol. 510 No. 1
9 Mr. Yates asked the Minister for Public Enterprise the proposals, if any, the Government has to introduce a complete separation of responsibilities and supervision in view of the recent rail crash in London and the subsequent decision there to separate rail safety from rail track or transport management. [20806/99]
The situation in the UK is very different from ours. The concern there centres on the fact that Railtrack, the private company which owns the railway infrastructure, also has responsibility for regulating safety in respect of the train operating companies. It is this safety regulatory responsibility that is to be removed from Railtrack. While the circumstances in both countries are not the same, my Department is keeping close contact with developments in the UK.
The independent review of railway safety in Ireland identified a number of options for the future regulation of railway safety in Ireland. My Department is currently considering these options and is in consultation with the Health and Safety Authority, CIE and the trade unions, prior to preparing proposals for new railway safety laegislation. I would also welcome the views of Members of this House on the issue, particularly on the options put forward in the IRMS report.
I hope to be able to make a statement outlining the likely future direction of railway safety regulation before the end of this year. However, it is not my intention to diminish the primary responsibility of Iarnród Éireann to operate a safe railway. The main issues being addressed in my Department's review are the form and content of the new regulatory regime and the body which will be responsible for safety regulation.
I wish to formally extend my condolences to the families and friends of those who died in that awful rail crash. I had the opportunity to do so the day after the crash at a Council of Transport Ministers meeting in Europe but I also wish to do so in this House.
We would all like to be associated with that vote of condolence to all those concerned in respect of that horrific tragedy.
The previous debate on rail safety arising out of the incident at Knockcroghery has related mostly to derailments. The accident at Paddington occurred as a result of a train going through a red light and crashing into another train. That was the second such horrific incident. Does the Minister have statistics on how many trains here have gone through a red light over the past 12 months? An autonomic breaking system, ATP, is to be introduced in the UK. Has she any plans vis-à-vis rail safety to introduce an ATP system in Ireland?
While there have been only interim reviews of what happened at Paddington that day, the accident appears to have been caused as a result of one train breaking a red light. I do not have information with me as to how many such incidents have occurred here, but I can find that out for the Deputy from the railway safety officers.
Deputy Penrose has tabled a question on the £80 million worth of work that has been carried out on the continuous welded track, signalling, banks, bridges, railway crossings and on various other matters this year. Following the incident at Knockcroghery, we tended to concentrate work on the continuous welded track and that is quite proper. There are many other issues involved and signalling forms a strong part of the independent review study on the matter.
The Deputy asked about the introduction of an ATP system here and I will report back to him on that. Much of the debate in the UK has focused on Railtrack, the private company that owns the rail lines. Questions have arisen in interviews about it on many Channel 4 programmes and other programmes. Railtrack also has responsibility for regulating safety in respect of train operating companies. Much of the debate has centred on whether that is the correct mix and that gives rise to many questions.
The Deputy asked how many incidents have arisen as a result of a train here going through a red light. Such an offence would come to light only if an incident occurred as a result of it. He also asked about the introduction of an ATP system and I will report back to him on that.
The Minister said she is conducting a review of rail safety legislation and that the day to day responsibility for rail safety lies with Iarnród Éireann, which is correct. There is an inherent conflict of interest in it being an operator and a regulator of rail safety. It is trying to obtain the maximum revenue and this relates to the overcrowding issue. This conflict of interest should be removed. This could be achieved by an equivalent of the HSAI or an adjunct of it being independently responsible for rail safety and answerable to the Minister. Commuters should be assured that a body is independently monitoring rail safety, overcrowding, level crossing safety and all the other issues involved and such a body should produce interim reports and an annual report.
The time allocated for this question has expired. We must proceed to Question No. 10.
The Minister could give a "yes" or "no" answer to my question.
As the Deputy will be aware, four options were put forward in the study. It favoured option D, which proposed that railway safety responsibility should be taken from HSAI and given to the railway inspecting officers and that they should be given appropriate additional powers.
