Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Nov 2005

Vol. 181 No. 14

Railway Safety Bill 2001: Second Stage.

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

I am pleased to introduce the Railway Safety Bill 2001 to the Seanad. I should acknowledge that it was the Leader of this House who, as Minister for Public Enterprise with responsibility for transport matters, published the Bill. I congratulate Senator O'Rourke on having done so.

I thank the Minister of State.

The laws governing railway safety date back, in the most part, to Victorian times. They are no longer appropriate for the railway systems of today and need to be updated. Safety is and must remain top of the agenda in the provision of rail services. This applies to both customers and staff working on the railway. The number of people using rail services is, I am glad to say, increasing on a regular basis and it is essential for all involved that standards of safety keep pace with the ever-increasing demand.

We have heard the great news concerning Transport 21, the ten-year transport investment plan the Department of Transport launched last Tuesday. The plan will result in a significant enhancement and expansion of the railway network at national level, including the western corridor, and in the greater Dublin area. Therefore, it is imperative that we have in place a modern regulatory framework for overseeing railway safety.

This Bill will ensure that the ongoing investment in our railways is accompanied by the introduction of effective formal safety management systems and that these systems are independently validated. The primary purposes of the Bill are as follows: to establish an independent statutory public body, the Railway Safety Commission, with wide-ranging powers of inspection, investigation and enforcement; to establish a functionally independent railway incident investigation unit within the commission to investigate railway accidents; to require railway undertakings to put in place a formal safety management system and describe the components of that system in a document called a "safety case"; to establish an independent statutory public body, the railway safety advisory council, comprising representatives of organisations with an interest in railway safety; and to provide for the testing of safety-critical railway workers for intoxicants.

The Bill provides a modern, but flexible, means of independently overseeing the safety of our railways. It covers not only the Iarnród Éireann network but also the Luas system, the planned metro network, about which I am particularly delighted, heritage railways and other railways that interface with a public road or another railway.

Many of the provisions of this Bill are implementing requirements of the EU railway safety directive adopted in April 2004. For example, the directive requires that each member state establishes a railway safety regulator and appoints an independent railway accident investigator. Senators are probably aware that the Railway Safety Commission has been established on an interim basis pending the enactment of this Bill and I understand the post of chief accident investigator will be advertised in the coming weeks. This means we will be in a position to implement the aforementioned provisions quickly.

The EU railway safety directive also requires that railway operators and infrastructure managers be certified by the safety authority on the basis of formal safety management systems. While these and most of the requirements of the EU railway safety directive are being implemented through this Bill, certain other more technical requirements of the directive will be transposed through regulations to be made under this Bill.

Lessons learned from other countries have been taken into consideration in the provisions of the Bill. The Bill does not replicate the safety regime of any one country, rather, it takes account of different regimes and experiences in other countries and it defines a framework appropriate for the scale of the Irish railway network and the nature of its operations.

In addition to the modernisation of the law relating to railway safety, the Government has already invested significant money in modernising the railway infrastructure and in the purchase of new rolling stock. In 1999, a high-level task force recommended the implementation of a 15-year railway safety programme comprising three five-year tranches. It first addressed the highest risks on the network and focuses on reducing overall risk, thus improving safety.

The Leader of this House, Senator O'Rourke, brought the proposals for the first safety programme to Cabinet and it was she who secured over €600 million for the funding of the safety programme covering the period 1999 to 2003. Since the commencement of the programme in 1999, in excess of €800 million has been invested in the infrastructure and safety management systems of Iarnród Éireann. By the end of 2013, over €1.4 billion will have been expended on railway safety, resulting in a much safer network for both passengers and staff. This major investment has resulted in a significant reduction in risk from the physical infrastructure. For example, 418 miles of track have been renewed, 260 miles of fencing have been erected and nearly 800 level crossings have been closed or upgraded.

The safety culture in Iarnród Éireann has also been enhanced through improved training, the development of company-wide standards and the development of management tools such as the risk-assessment model and the infrastructure asset management system. It is worth mentioning that while this investment is safety-related, resulting in reduced risk and an improvement in safety indicators, the programme contributes significantly to the overall business performance of Iarnród Éireann and contributes to significant benefits to customers through reduced journey times resulting from track renewal and upgrading. In addition, since 1997 the Government has, through Iarnród Éireann, undertaken a significant programme to renovate and replace ageing rolling stock and significantly expand the fleet. This has involved the doubling of the DART rail carriage fleet and the purchase of 163 diesel railcars, 120 intercity railcars and 67 intercity carriages. By the end of 2007, when all the currently ordered rolling stock will have entered service, we will have one of the youngest fleets in Europe, if not the world. This represents a tremendous advancement in a relatively short period.

Much work has been done to improve accessibility and all rolling stock will be fully accessible. Considerable work has been done at nearly every railway station in this regard. Some of the new carriages will not only have fully accessible features to facilitate mounting and disembarking but will also have fully accessible toilet facilities in each carriage. This is the class of railcar we are acquiring.

Part 1 of the Bill includes standard provisions in regard to such matters as the Short Title, interpretation, orders and regulations. Part 2 deals with the establishment of the Railway Safety Commission. Part 3 places general duties of care on railway undertakings, persons working on railways and other persons. Part 4 deals with safety management systems, safety cases and related issues. Part 5 deals with the investigation of railway incidents. Part 6 deals with the making of regulations on specified matters and the review of legislation by the commission. Part 7 deals with the enforcement powers of inspectors of the commission and the investigation unit. Part 8 deals with the establishment of the railway safety advisory council and sets out its membership and functions.

Parts 9 and 10 of the Bill set out a detailed regime for the testing of safety-critical railway workers for drugs and alcohol. This is a significant innovation in the area of railway safety. Railway unions must be consulted in the drafting of the binding codes of conduct in this regard. I have included powers to test safety-critical workers at random, and in circumstances that are reasonable, while they are at work. The Attorney General has confirmed to me that this provision will withstand constitutional scrutiny on the basis that the balance struck by the Legislature between the private rights of individuals and those of the public is proportionate. In giving this advice, he was conscious of the limited application of the random testing provisions to safety-critical railway workers and the potentially catastrophic consequences for large numbers of people of mistakes in the operation, maintenance or repair of the railway system. I cannot stress this point strongly enough.

Part 11 of the Bill deals with works on a public road in the vicinity of a railway. Part 12 provides for serious offences such as attempting to derail a train by obstructing a railway line, exposing others to danger on a railway and deliberate damage to a railway. Part 13 deals with various procedural matters such as prosecution and the service of notices. Part 14 deals with amendments to legislation relating exclusively to CIE. Part 15 deals with miscellaneous matters and Part 16 updates the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. Schedule 1 details the various enactments repealed and Schedule 2 details the existing statutory functions relating to railway safety regulations which are to be transferred to the new railway safety commission.

The new regulatory framework and the major investment the Government continues to make in our railways will lay the bedrock for safe rail travel in the future and will assure the travelling public that safety is and will continue to be of paramount importance to this Government. I ask Senators to facilitate the early passage of the Bill into law and I commend it to the House.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and wish him well with this Bill. Fine Gael will not delay the passage of the Bill through the House. While I also welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation I regret the fact that it has taken so long to reach the House. When the Bill was first introduced in the Dáil in 2001, many speakers commented on its importance. In the intervening period, four years have passed and we are extremely fortunate that there has been no significant rail crash or catastrophic accident during this period. The Bill is long overdue and the emphasis should be on ensuring its swift delivery.

The main aspects of the Bill, which provides for the monitoring and inspection of railway infrastructure and the investigation into and publication of reports on railway accidents, are long overdue. The publication of reports on railway accidents is needed urgently, particularly in light of the arrival of the Luas system and other ambitious rail plans, which the Minister of State outlined this morning. The question of whether any of us will still be in the House to see any of these projects realised is a debate for another day. The need for increased rail safety and the structure to provide it are clear prerequisites.

The Bill, which will hopefully be swiftly implemented, provides for wide-ranging enforcement powers. It puts a new regulatory framework for rail safety in place and will apply to all railways to which there is public access, including those rail lines operated by CIE, Luas and the proposed metro system. The Bill's remit also covers aspects of industrial railways that interface with public road and rail networks. The Bill places the primary duty of care on railway undertakings to ensure the safety of people for whom they are responsible, which is a very prudent, necessary and welcome measure.

In the wake of a rail accident at Knockcroghery, County Roscommon, the Minister for Public Enterprise acknowledged in 2001 that the standard of rail safety was completely unacceptable and that the rail safety inspectorate was inhibited from effectively doing its work because of Irish Rail's failure to provide full and timely information. This is not good enough and the travelling public needs and deserves better.

I hope this legislation can effect a sea change in how our rail operators view and deal with safety issues. In the past, Irish Rail has rarely admitted its own inadequacies in terms of the provision of rail safety. Its strategy has often been to avoid carrying out essential safety measures beforehand, blame staff for incidents when they occur and deflect responsibility for rail safety inadequacies from the company. The scapegoating of staff and the deflecting of responsibility must end because they undermine rail safety.

We need to move beyond merely blaming drivers. I am happy to see that the protection of whistleblowers is an integral part of the Bill. Such protection will be important in ensuring a change in how rail safety is dealt with. We will never have any systematic change in corporate culture unless the anonymity and job security of whistleblowers are guaranteed. Workers must not be afraid to report infringements of rail safety carried out by their employers.

In recent years, there have, thankfully, been far less heavy rail incidents. However, we cannot become complacent. What has come to the fore is the number of incidents which have occurred since the arrival of the two Luas lines. Greater security must be introduced to ensure these accidents do not occur and measures needed to prevent such accidents from reoccurring must be enacted. This will involve extensive co-operation between rail operators, the new railway safety commission and local authorities. It is crucial that the commission takes a proactive stance from its inception.

The high level of overcrowding on rail commuter services must be immediately investigated. It has been communicated to me that many commuter services to Dublin, such as the Drogheda and Maynooth commuter services, are frequently subject to extensive overcrowding, which is a disaster waiting to happen. Allowing people to be herded into overcrowded trains cannot be justified. Increasing the number of people using public transport is laudable because we need to persuade people not to travel by car but we cannot place the public in harm's way. We must set standards in this respect. The capacity to facilitate the numbers seeking to board our commuter trains is lacking although the genuine desire not to leave anyone behind on the platform is understandable. However, safety cannot be compromised. Rail tragedies in the UK have often brought home to us the need to ensure that safety is the paramount consideration.

Overcrowding is merely one of a range of rail safety breaches which cannot be tolerated. A colleague recently informed me about an incident on the Kildare line where the lighting failed and it became impossible to open the train's doors at each station. A number of my constituents have complained to me about four occasions in the last two months when the train to Westport broke down between Athlone and Dublin. I am sure everyone in the House has experienced or heard of rail horror stories.

I welcome the fact that the new commission will have teeth and hope it will aggressively pursue all rail safety infringements. It must ensure that rail operators do not focus solely on commercial considerations, as they have traditionally done. Public transport providers of any kind must place the travelling public to the fore of their considerations. The safety of the public and company employees must be to the fore and the commission must not tolerate any excuses from rail operators. The reporting of rail investigations must be swift or confidence in the commission will be undermined. In the past, the reporting of the outcomes of rail accident investigations has been prolonged.

One of the most important sections in the Bill, at least from an employee's perspective, is that concerned with drug testing. This provision is welcome and justified. I welcome the fact that the people who will assess samples taken from employees will be independent of Irish Rail. This measure is crucial, given the potential for bullying or intimidation of employees.

The aspect of the Bill that deals with criminal prosecutions is also vital and I hope the commission will not be tame in this regard. The commission's powers of detention and enforcement must be taken seriously by the rail industry from its inception. I am hopeful that the commission will not be tame in this respect either because the stakes are too high given that any oversights could lead to greater threats to public safety.

I welcome the Minister of State's announcement that 418 miles of rail track have been renewed, 260 miles of fencing have been erected and approximately 800 level crossings have been closed or upgraded. However, there are still unmanned level crossings in some areas, a number of which are in my county. There is a level crossing at Kilnageer outside Castlebar, County Mayo, one at Knockaphunta in Castlebar and one at Straide, County Mayo, on the Ballina line. There are three unmanned level crossings at Claremorris. There have been accidents at all these crossings, some of which were very serious. Tragedies have occurred at Knockaphunta. New signalling systems are being put in place which will speed up the trains. It should be possible to include the opening and closing of barriers at the unmanned level crossings in this work.

The signalling upgrade on the Sligo line will be completed this year but on the Westport and Ballina lines it will continue until 2008. There is plenty of time to link the unmanned level crossings into the system and set up automatic barriers where accidents are waiting to happen. There has been a significant increase in the population in these areas which gives rise to more traffic using the level crossings. I urge the Minister of State to consider those areas.

We will be as helpful as we can in that regard. I will see what can be done to complete those upgrades between 2005 and 2006. The officials have taken a note of the Senator's comments and will respond in writing.

Iarnród Éireann recently sold some quite new freight carriages. Coca-Cola located in Ballina because of its proximity to the rail network. The Government should examine the delivery of freight. There are independent operators in Europe willing to run the freight business and this service should be opened up to competition. Rather than referring an interested freight operator to CIE, the Department of Transport should evaluate whether there is a case for an independently operated freight system here. The Minister of State should consider this because Iarnród Éireann neither wants to run freight nor let somebody else run it. If we are to take cars and lorries off the roads this is an ideal opportunity to do so, as we will pump a large sum of money into public transport and rail services over the next ten years.

Will the Minister of State provide a solid assurance that the railway safety commission will be answerable to the Oireachtas, not just by publishing investigation and annual reports but by answering the day-to-day queries from Members? Recently we have seen that the Minister for Transport does not answer questions about the National Roads Authority, and the Minister for Health and Children does not answer questions about the Health Service Executive, leaving public representatives in the dark. This is not good enough. I seek an assurance that the Minister for Transport will personally answer questions on the commission and its work. I hope the Minister of State will clarify this matter in his reply to Second Stage.

I too welcome the Minister of State to the House and acknowledge how much time he has spent in the Seanad in recent weeks dealing with legislation. This Bill is one of the most important to come before us in this session. It has been around for some time and I am happy that it is now in the Seanad and moving towards its final stages. We on this side of the House will do anything necessary to ensure its speedy passage. I welcome Senator Paddy Burke's comments that his colleagues will co-operate in the passage of the Bill.

The origins of the Bill lie in a derailment in Knockcroghery in 1997 as a result of which an independent review was established. The subsequent report showed that under-investment in the rail infrastructure had compromised rail safety leading to the derailment. This lowering of safety standards due to poor investment led to other minor accidents over the years.

The Government at the time decided to take a proactive approach. It had two options, one, to do nothing and allow the rail infrastructure to disappear over time, keeping services on certain lines at a reduced speed; or two, to grasp the nettle, find the money and invest in the infrastructure. This was difficult because it involved making up for the sins of omission of successive Governments which did not invest in upgrading the rail infrastructure.

We should all recognise the efforts made by the Leader of this House, Senator O'Rourke, who as Minister for Public Enterprise fought her corner in Cabinet when maybe there was less money available than now. She can take pride in the work she did to lay the foundation for Transport 21. It is critically important to enact this Bill and we do not want it to be delayed in this House.

The DART has been upgraded recently, with more frequent and longer trains, and the extension of some of the facilities around the rail lines. Commuter services into Dublin from various areas on the outskirts have also increased. In County Clare the trains on the Ennis to Limerick line are more frequent which is most welcome.

Work has been done to reduce the number of accidents, which is at the root of the Bill. Now we are ensuring the legislation is put in place to prevent further derailments. It is important also to reduce the risk of accidents, in line with international best practice. The powers of inspection, investigation and enforcement created for the proposed railway safety commission, about which Senator Paddy Burke spoke, will ensure that future rail operations in an expanded environment will minimise risk. The obligation the Bill places on railway companies to prepare a safety management system that will be documented in the safety case to which the Minister of State referred will ensure the development by the railway companies of a new focus on safety, on a new ethos of safety and on the maintenance of safety standards. That is critically important with the extra investment being made, and the new companies being involved. Luas, for example, is clearly a separate company to Iarnród Éireann. We will see a great deal more activity in terms of upgrading the western rail corridor and the extra work in and around Cork. With all these companies involved, and all the different projects going on, it will be critical that the overarching provisions of the Bill are in place to ensure there is no fall-off in safety standards.

The establishment of the railway investigation unit as part of the railway safety commission is important, particularly as it will provide the wide-ranging powers necessary to ensure that the cause of accidents is investigated at an early stage, and established without delay or equivocation. It is only through understanding why accidents happen that we can increase their prevention and ensure nothing like the case referred to occurs in the future. The provision to establish the independent statutory public body, the railway safety advisory council, comprising representatives of various organisations with an interest in rail, rail procurement, rail management and operation, is important because it brings together the significant players in the sector, ensuring best practice is followed at all times.

It would be remiss not to recognise today the proposals made by Government in the past few days with regard to the expansion not just of rail infrastructure but of the entire Irish rail network and transportation network, including roads. It is significant that the Government has taken the decision to reopen the western rail corridor and extend it. The line from Ennis to Galway will open up a significant commuter belt which will be welcomed by Clare and the entire western region. We would all like to see the western rail corridor extended all the way from Limerick to Collooney without delay, and onwards to Sligo, but the Government efforts to extend the line on a phased basis are welcome. The extension works need to be expedited.

The rail spur to Shannon Airport, which will ultimately tag onto the western rail corridor, was mentioned in the Transport 21 plans but not as specifically as I would have liked. I know Iarnród Éireann is currently conducting a feasibility study on the spur, and if a positive business case can be made for it through that study, I hope the Government will be in a position to provide the necessary funding to put it in place. It is essential that the western rail corridor provides access to what is a key piece of infrastructure in the west. I know the Government is serious about the national spatial strategy and the plank of balanced regional development is in line with the recent transport announcements, ensuring that the key access points to the region, particularly Shannon Airport as part of the gateway strategy — Shannon being recognised as a gateway town — are taken into account. I hope some work can proceed in that area.

It is important that the western seaboard be recognised as having the potential to correspond with the eastern coast in terms of having the Atlantic corridor road along the west coast. Together with the western rail corridor it will assist in providing a counterbalance, and create the potential for developing growth both in investment and in tourism infrastructure in the west.

Senator Paddy Burke raised a number of points, including the issue of level crossings. We must address that matter without delay — I am aware Iarnród Éireann is working on it. In resolving the issue we must take into account the needs of those affected, in particular farmers. Within the farming community there are specific groups of people who need to be assisted in this regard. I am thinking first of dairy farmers, who need to move cows in the mornings and evenings. Beef or cattle farmers only have to herd their cattle on a daily basis and do not have to bring their animals to and fro. They can perhaps afford to take them by tractor, trailer or truck and find a bridge rather than go directly across the railway line. We must however give due consideration to dairy farmers who need to move their cows twice daily. We need to consider putting in place the necessary bridges or underpasses. I understand that from a safety point of view it is probably easier to construct an underpass than a bridge, but at any rate investment is needed to protect our dairy farmers.

I agree with Senator Paddy Burke regarding freight. Those of us who travel to and from Dublin on a weekly basis, usually very early in the morning or late at night, find that the roads are becoming increasingly cluttered with heavy commercial goods vehicles, particularly at night, avoiding the congestion that tends to build up during the day. Many people involved in Irish transportation systems probably share my view that our railways are an underutilised asset, particularly at night, when standard commuter services are not in operation. Without any cost to the State, we could, as Senator Paddy Burke noted, allow international operators to utilise, through some kind of tendering or contract process, the infrastructure which is there. They could then deliver a freight service which would not conflict with what Iarnród Éireann has become very good at, namely passenger traffic and management. I would like to see that happen as quickly as possible.

To some extent there has been an effort to undermine the great work done in particular by the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, in getting the metro included as part of the Transport 21 agenda. Any modern European city the size of Dublin has an underground travel system. Considering how Dublin is growing, it is important we put such an infrastructure in place, because surface travel has limited capacity. This is the time to make the investment and put the infrastructure in place so that the city can continue to grow.

I was disappointed to hear the comments of one individual, whom I will not name, but who is involved in the airline business. This person has done extremely well from the growth of Dublin's population, and incidentally provides a very good service in his area. He has developed his business on the back of a thriving economy and a growing city, yet in his mind the issue is only about the passengers he wants, and how they get to the airport.

The metro link will provide much more than a service to the airport. It will serve the airport but will go onwards to Swords. There is a substantial developing community in that north County Dublin area which will use the metro on a daily basis to get to and from the city. I do not see why the person I mentioned should make the comments he made, undermining a great achievement of the Minister of State in ensuring the metro was included in the transport plan, and blackmailing the Government into pandering to his agenda in order to increase his profits and make his company more attractive on the stock market. I hope that people will see his comments in that light, rather than as those of someone who has a real interest in the development of a transport infrastructure for this country. It is quite clear that this man does not have such an interest, and little heed should be paid to his comments.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. We should all share an interest in supporting this Bill because railway safety is of significant importance. I thank Senator Dooley for admitting that there were periods when the economy was not doing well and insufficient money was available to do all that we wished. In 1997, for example, the then Minister for Public Enterprise, Senator O'Rourke, secured IR£600 million to provide for safety on the railways even though not much money was available at that time. I will remind Senator Dooley of his comments when future claims are made that insufficient money is available to address child care and other issues. The times have changed and the strong economy allows to us to introduce measures that were impossible for previous Governments.

Regrettable incidents took place on the railways and, more recently, on the Luas. We must take steps to ensure that such incidents do not recur. When this Bill is implemented, it will greatly contribute to railway safety.

Senator Burke raised the ongoing safety issue of overcrowding among passengers. Such circumstances arise from the significant demand that exists for rail services. Health and safety obligations are being ignored on a daily basis along the Connolly to Maynooth line and many people are put at risk by being squashed into carriages. I know of incidents where people have collapsed, pregnant women have felt unwell and children were placed in danger. When large numbers of people want to travel by train, health and safety issues arise that will not be addressed until measures are put in place to protect passengers. People are concerned that trains are unsafe. Passengers on the aforementioned line also face dangers in terms of stone throwing. Concerns exist in such situations that a missile may come through a window.

In light of the recent terrorism incidents on trains and buses in London, what safety measures are being put in place here to reduce such a risk? While I hope similar events will never transpire here, we must be prepared for the worst. I would like to learn what precautions will be taken by the railway safety commission to prevent terrorists from causing mayhem. Has the Minister of State given thought to this issue?

What kinds of hazardous wastes or dangerous chemicals are currently being carried on our railways? Are major emergency plans in place to deal with an accident if one should occur? Such a plan should involve hospitals, the Garda and fire services. We must be prepared for human errors and other incidents because these can cause major catastrophes.

Not only must we ensure the safety of passengers on trains but we should also protect them as they enter and leave railway stations. Two stations in my area, Coolmine and Clonsilla, are located beside roads and bridges which were built when horses and carts were the main forms of transport. Such roads now carry enormous amounts of traffic, with which pedestrians must compete in order to board trains. The local authority has long sought pedestrian footbridges from Iarnród Éireann for passengers to access the stations. The Minister of State's officials might provide an update on measures taken with regard to these stations.

The provision of car parking facilities for train passengers is a growing problem. This is a safety issue because the shortage of parking spaces in many railway stations results in indiscriminate parking in surrounding areas. This legislation will provide for safety but I ask the Minister of State to consider whether the matters I raised can be addressed.

With the agreement of the House, I will share my time with Senator MacSharry.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, to what has now become the Thursday club. I want to speak to the Railway Safety Bill 2001 and address some of the issues arising from the announcement by the Minister and his colleague of the Transport 21 initiative.

The primary purpose of the Railway Safety Bill is to establish an independent statutory public body, the railway safety commission, with wide ranging powers of inspection, investigation and enforcement. It will require railway operators to put in place a formal safety management system and describe the components of that system in safety case documents. A railway incident investigation unit will be established within the railway safety commission. A second independent statutory public body, the railway safety advisory council, will comprise representatives of organisations with an interest in railway safety. The Bill also makes provision for the testing for intoxicants among railway workers employed in safety-critical areas. I welcome all those initiatives. Has the Minister of State checked the constitutionality of the provision for the testing of safety-critical railway workers for intoxicants? I would like him to comment on that because the Government might run into difficulty in terms of that provision.

As was stated by previous speakers, following a derailment at Knockcroghery in November 1997 the then Minister for Public Enterprise who is now the Leader of the Seanad, Senator O'Rourke, obtained agreement from Government for the provision of IR£600 million to improve the safety of our railways. That was very much welcomed. As my colleagues, Senators Dooley and Terry outlined, money was scarce at that time and to secure a package of IR£600 million was a great achievement. I compliment the Leader and her officials on the work they put into preparing this Bill.

IRMS consultants were tasked with reviewing all aspects of the safety of the Iarnród Éireann rail network and of the legislative framework for regulating railway safety. In its report published in late 1998, IRMS concluded that historically the Iarnród Éireann network had been a safe railway but also recognised that there had been a shortfall in investment which at the time was impacting on safety. IRMS recommended that substantial investment was required urgently in infrastructural renewal and that it was necessary to introduce more formal systems and procedures within Iarnród Éireann to further improve safety standards. Since its 1998 report, IRMS carried out two follow up reviews of the safety of Iarnród Éireann's network. In its 2001 report it found that Iarnród Éireann had made substantial progress in improving the safety of its railway infrastructure. That is to be very much welcomed.

This Bill is designed to put in place a modern regulatory framework for railway safety and careful consideration was given to IRMS's recommendations and to regulatory regimes in other countries. The Bill comprises 16 Parts, which the Minister of State eloquently outlined. It covers not only the Iarnród Éireann network but the Luas, the planned metro network and heritage and other railways which have an interface with the public road network or other rail lines.

I wish to comment on the Transport 21 initiative, the €35 billion transport package launched last Thursday by the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and the Minister of State, Deputy Callely. I compliment them on that initiative. As I have stated here previously, we do not have a railway in Cavan. To quote from what an eminent Member of the other House, who is follically challenged like myself but has not given into it and wears a cap, has said, "the only dart we have in Cavan is a dartboard and even they are becoming scarce because of insurance considerations". We welcome the initiative to bring the railway to Navan by 2015, which would facilitate commuters living in Cavan. There is a railway line in Cavan which goes as far as Kingscourt. While it is not possible to include that line under the initiative at this stage, I request that money be provided to maintain it to ensure that when money becomes available in the near future, it could be put into operation. I congratulate the Minster of State and his team on their work.

I join with others in welcoming the Minister of State to the House. I am delighted to have this opportunity to make a few points on this Bill, which I welcome. I am sure that neither the Minister of State nor the Minister, Deputy Cullen, would not mind if I singled out the Leader of the House and former Minister in this area, Senator O'Rourke, for particular mention. At a time when IR£10 million was a great deal of money, she succeeded in securing the equivalent of €650 million to improve the system. I have first-hand knowledge of this in that CIE was closing the Sligo to Dublin line in the early 1990s. Due to major investment in that line overseen by the then Minister, Deputy O'Rourke, and successive Ministers, the line was brought up to the required standard.

I welcome this Bill. While the rail safety record here is good, the UK has not had the same luck in that respect and we could learn from its experience. It is important that we have this comprehensive Bill which provides for the establishment of the commission with an investigative division and an advisory council which will be representative of all the unions, consumers and the disabled. That is to be welcomed. It is good that we have, for want of a better expression, a HACCP system that relates to rail transportation, particularly with all that is planned over the coming years. I welcome the considerable work that has been done on our rail network, the work on the Sligo line being a case in point. That rail line has been replaced and the signalling system has been upgraded to a modern standard to cater for the needs of today.

Most of the previous speakers went into the detail of the Bill, but I will not do that as I do not want to delay the House. I wish to comment briefly on the Transport 21 initiative. I congratulate the Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and the Government on the huge investment to which they have committed over the coming years in our transport infrastructure. I do not want to be negative but I want to point out the needs in my corner of the country, the north west. The people there are delighted that the western rail corridor is set to extend to Claremorris. However, I cannot but express disappointment that the rail corridor will not extend all the way to Collooney. I do not fully understand that reason for that. I know there is a cost consideration, but many years ago wearing a different hat I attended a conference in Limerick when the spatial strategy was at embryonic stage and submissions were being received in respect of it. The phrase commonly uttered at that time was the need for "capacity before demand". If there are gateways to Sligo and Letterkenny and we put in the infrastructure to provide capacity before we have the demand, we would be poised to meet the demand that will come on stream.

Dublin will be under huge pressure in the future with 1 million people coming to live here during the next ten years. We should invest now in the transport infrastructure in areas such as Sligo. There is not a kilometre of motorway north of a line from Dublin to Galway and west of Mullingar, nor are there any plans to build one. There are no radiotherapy services or gas supply in that part of the country. It would be beneficial if the Government could have a little more vision in the context of provision for that area. The people in Sligo, Letterkenny and that part of the country are eager to take their proportion of the number of extra people who will come to live here and thereby relieve the pressure on resources in Dublin. I welcome all the investment in transport in Dublin, in the metro and the Luas; it is fantastic and the Government is to be commended on it. I do not want to be unduly negative and I acknowledge that this initiative is the most historic announcement in terms of transportation infrastructure in the history of the State, but I ask the Minister of State and his colleague the Minister, Deputy Cullen, to use their good offices in Cabinet to try to get across the point across that the north west is open for business and is ready, willing and able to do its bit. I ask the Ministers to try their best to give us that little bit extra we need to perform to our potential.

I have only had the opportunity to speed read the Bill on which I wish to make a number of brief points. I appreciate that it is normally the role of Opposition Members to say it has been an awful long time since a Bill has come through the other House and that it has taken a long time to get here, but in this case that seems to be peculiarly true. The Bill went through the Dáil shortly after the election in late 2002 and three years have elapsed since it was passed there. From a quick read of the Minister of State's speech, I did not see any explanation for the reason it has taken so long to bring it to this House. I appreciate that the commission is already de facto in position. Perhaps the view is that it did not require statutory backup but, nonetheless, there seems to have been an extraordinary delay in the Bill coming to this House and I presume there is some explanation for that.

The main point I want to make is very complimentary of the Leader of this House. When people look back on her term as Minister for Public Enterprise they will probably see the issue of rail safety and the investment she secured for the permanent way as her major achievement. It is a Department that has seen many failures over the years, with many plans announced and ditched, and a failure to progress many of its plans to completion. However, in this particular case, thankfully, we have made some progress.

The progress arose, as others have said, from the incident in Knockcroghery in the late 1990s and the IRMS report that was completed shortly thereafter. I remember reading the report at that time and I, like many others, was genuinely shocked at the level to which our permanent way had deteriorated. For example, many of the bridges were clearly decrepit, almost falling down. Some of the photographs printed in the rail safety report were genuinely frightening. This was a function of the neglect of the railways over a long period of time.

In essence, we only have a radial service emanating from Dublin, which is under-used for most of the week and serves people who commute to the city from close by or who go down to the country or come up to Dublin at weekends. Frankly, the service had fallen into disuse. The rolling stock had not been replaced and hidden dangers in the system had been overlooked for many years. If anything makes the case for an independent inspectorate that will identify problems in the service and infrastructure, it is the IRMS report that was published a number of years ago.

It is evident from the review group report, completed a number of years after the IRMS report, that much improvement has been made and I want to genuinely compliment the then Minister for Public Enterprise, Senator O'Rourke, on the effort she expended in securing such improvement. In so many other countries, action of that kind only takes place following a serious accident. We are blessed in having managed to avoid any serious accident, excepting that which took place in Cherryville in 1983.

I accept the general proposition that we need a rail safety commission that is separate from the rail operators. However, I am not clear as to how the operation of the commission will intersect with the Health and Safety Authority. The HSA has an overarching responsibility for accidents, safety procedures and ensuring that such procedures are properly followed. There must be, at least, a decent working relationship between the two bodies. Was consideration given to the possibility of integrating the commission into the Health and Safety Authority, so that it could benefit from the experience the HSA has built up in policing safety procedures in other industries? I am unsure how the bodies will relate to one another.

The main issue is one of resources. I accept the general proposition that we should place a statutory duty of care on rail operators, on Iarnród Éireann, Luas and so forth, to look after the safety of their customers. However, we need to be honest and admit that a legal, statutory duty of care is one thing, but what is important is resources. CIE and Iarnród Éireann are State-owned and resourced. The bulk of the subsidy given to CIE goes towards the railways. The experience of three or four years ago proves that if CIE does not have the money, it cannot make the railway safe.

To declare that Iarnród Éireann has a statutory responsibility to ensure a safe railway system is fine, but in practice that responsibility devolves to the Department of Transport and, indirectly, to the Department of Finance. It is up to the Departments to make the resources available, which can be considerable, to ensure we have a safe system, that bridges are underpinned, level crossings are safely operated and so on. As well as placing a legal, statutory responsibility for safety on the operators, we also need a political commitment to fund the operators and that must be acknowledged in the Bill.

The issue of overcrowding has been raised by almost every speaker today. It is a major issue. I was interviewed recently on Today FM and was asked my opinion on safety belts on buses. To be honest, it had not struck me before, but it obviously arose in the context of the tragic accident in County Meath. The conditions that apply in DART trains every weekday morning, in commuter trains around Dublin and in the mainline trains leaving Dublin after 3 p.m. on Friday can be awful. A few years ago I was returning from Galway, having attended a funeral there. A woman got on the train in Loughrea. We were standing in the area between two carriages because there was nowhere else to stand. She asked the ticket collector if she would get a discount, given the fact that she could not get a seat. The collector shrugged. He was obviously used to getting a certain amount of abuse every week. It is the norm and widely accepted by those who use intercity trains on Fridays that the standard of accommodation is awful. If one does not get on the train at the terminus, one will not get a seat. This is intolerable.

I appreciate there is a difficulty in providing a large amount of rolling stock, which is not used during the week, simply to provide adequate services at the weekends. However, the issue must be addressed because if there is an accident some day, it will be made so much worse by virtue of the overcrowding. Questions will then be put to the Minister of State, or to his successor, as to why he did not deal with this issue. Again, this comes down to resources. We need to provide the rolling stock for Iarnród Éireann in order to ensure that it can provide proper and safe services on Fridays. If that means that we have to limit ——

That will be done.

We will wait and see.

The trains are ordered.

They have been ordered several times.

Some of them have arrived.

We need to limit the number of passengers. We cannot continue to allow the large numbers of people who arrive at Heuston Station on Friday to board the trains. We cannot do that because sooner or later there will be a tragic accident and questions will be asked.

Others have mentioned Transport 21 and I feel like a broken record complaining about this but it is genuinely disappointing. I have complained about integrated ticketing in the past. The website of the Department of Transport is fantastic because it allows one to look at press releases dating back to 1997. I entered Midleton into the search engine this morning to ascertain how often the extension from Cork to Midleton had been announced. It was first announced in 1998 and again in 1999 by the then Minister, Senator O'Rourke. It was included in the national development plan in 2000. The extension was announced again in 2004 as a definitive plan with an amount of money provided and now it has appeared again in the Transport 21 plan launched two days ago. I hope it happens but the Minister of State must understand that people are deeply sceptical about this. One could take half a dozen different transport proposals, trace them back with the benefit of the Department's website, and see that they have been announced so many times that the credibility of the Minister and his Department is now zilch.

I read, very carefully, the contribution of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, to the presentation of the Transport 21 plan. There were ifs and buts in what he said. When the Minister for Finance says that the money is being provided but is predicated on the presumption of 4.5% growth, which is as much as most people believe we can manage, and that he still only intends to spend approximately €5 billion per annum on the public capital programme, which is what we are already spending, then alarm bells should, justifiably, start to ring. Essentially what he is saying is that he thinks the plan is a good idea and will remain so in ten years time, but we may not be able to afford it and other priorities may arise. Furthermore, even though the current Minister for Finance thinks it is a good idea, his successor may not agree.

The metro was first announced in 2000, by the then Minister, Senator O'Rourke, and almost everybody thinks the metro is a good idea, except Mr. Michael O'Leary. Why has it not happened? It has not happened, not because the Department of Transport wanted to stop it, although there are some officials who are not enthusiastic, but because the officials in Merrion Street will not sign the cheques. It also has not happened because in recent years whenever we think we cannot afford a project or are not enthusiastic about providing money from Exchequer funds, we have taken to saying we will do it by way of a public-private partnership, PPP.

In the past I have been reasonably enthusiastic about PPPs but they are not a panacea. There are many projects in which the private sector is not interested or which would necessitate paying it far too much to stimulate its interest. We must, in the first instance, provide Exchequer funding and if there is private sector interest also, then that is fine. However, we cannot predicate a major project on there being private sector interest because we cannot guarantee that. Frankly, if the interest is not organically present, then frequently we end up having to pay far too much for private sector involvement in projects. When I see that €8 billion of the plan's budget is predicated on private sector interest, then I get worried. I worry whether we can afford, or will choose to afford, to complete all elements of the plan, assuming the current Government is in power for a significant part of the next ten years.

I would like to ask the Minister of State a few questions about Luas. I assume the requirement for safety procedures and so on under the Bill will apply to Luas. Since the Bill has been on the stocks since the Luas came into operation, have the various provisions that already apply to the Luas system a benchmark of safety procedures under which they operate? Is it the operator, which is a French company, or the rail authority that is responsible for ensuring that the safety procedures are in operation? It appears that we are saying that if the service is not safe it can slow down. I am not sure this is a sufficient basis on which to proceed.

Part 9 has invited a fair bit of interest, not least from our colleagues in the trade union movement, with whom I disagree on this issue. The Bill provides that the same levels of intoxicants must be present in the blood of a crucial safety worker in order for an offence to be committed. I am strongly of the view that we should take a zero tolerance approach to this issue and that individuals who are responsible for trains, which may carry hundreds of people, should not be permitted any safe level of alcohol. I know it is being done on the basis that workers and drivers in other positions are allowed to have one or one and a half drinks, therefore, in the interests of fairness and equality, it should apply to rail workers. I do not believe this should be the case. I do not think we should even contemplate the possibility that someone who is responsible for the safety of hundreds of people should have any level of alcohol in his or her blood. My inclination is that there should be zero tolerance in that regard. I agree with what my colleagues in the trade union movement said about the need for an independent person to take and process the sample. As Senator Wilson said, there may be a constitutional issue, which the Minister of State must clarify.

I welcome the Bill. I would like to think that much of what it provides for is already in operation. However, it is well to get it onto the Statute Book.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and, more important, the legislation. We should thank the interim commission which has been dealing with the issue for a number of years. I would like to raise a few aspects in this regard, which I am pleased the Minister of State raised in his speech. This relates to the type of model we hope to mirror. My concern was that much of the legislation would be based on the UK model and experience. We know the dreadful history of the UK model. At a time of unprecedented investment in the railway network, we must not underestimate investment in safety procedures. I am pleased that the Minister of State assured us he will not follow the experience of any particular country. My concerns would be increased greatly if we modelled ourselves on the UK experience.

The second issue I wish to address is the level of investment. In recent years, approximately €650 million has been invested in this area. Given the improvement in intercity and suburban train services, including the Spencer Dock project, there must be further investment in the many level crossings throughout Dublin in particular. These crossings close for approximately four minutes at peak times because of the signalling. Signalling operations in Coolmine, where I live, and other areas must be examined because people know that if they are caught, they will be delayed for four minutes, and there is a temptation to make a dash before the light turns red. We must examine level crossings in urban areas such as Dublin and Cork, including the Midleton line. When travelling here yesterday, I saw two cars blocking the Luas at Queen Street. An ambulance, which had its blue light flashing, was also blocked. Everyone was stuck because the traffic on the quays was blocked. The safety issue cannot be overestimated.

The other aspect in which I would urge caution is in the area of regulation, which can stifle business. It is important that responsibility for safety should remain with the operators and the responsibility of the commission should not extend into that area. In the end, the buck should stop with the various operators. There is a major difference between the various operators. There is a limit on the number of people Dublin Bus can allow to sit and stand on a double-decker bus because of axle weights. However, there is no such limit on suburban trains. I asked the inspectorate to examine the Maynooth line and it said there was no health and safety case to be answered. This is a matter of great concern to the general public. This morning, I travelled into town by car rather than taking the 7.20 a.m. train from Castleknock. Why would one not take the train which costs just €3.20 return? It is because there is no space. At least one has space in one's car. One might have to travel on a gridlocked road, but one will take one's chances.

I hope that as a result of Transport 21 the uncomfortable travel arrangements endured by too many people will come to an end. People may think that public transport is stress-free and travelling by car is stressful, but it is currently as stressful to use public transport during peak times. I hope that over the next couple of years we will see an end to the dreadful practice of overcrowding on trains.

Another issue that must be examined is how people get to and from trains. Access to and egress from railway stations throughout Dublin is less than safe. We do not have proper pedestrian bridges. Some old bridges are preserved structures, therefore, footpaths cannot be built across them and they cannot be widened or made higher. Given the increasing numbers of people who will be using public transport as a result of the increased investment, there is a breakdown of communications between local authorities and Irish Rail in regard to who has responsibility for this issue. This is another area I would like to see addressed.

In welcoming Transport 21, the Government should be congratulated on putting forward a package that focuses attention and public debate on how the service can be delivered speedily. During the past two or three years, commuters have been experiencing levels of traffic which the DTO forecast for 2015. We have already reached this level and investment is that many years behind. While this is a ten-year plan, I hope the sequencing can be tweaked to bring parts of it forward. There is nothing like competition to force operators to get on with the job. While a lot of money is being invested in roads, the metro and Luas, it is unfortunate that so little is being invested in buses under the plan. Competition might force better sequencing. The longer the delivery time, the greater chance there is of not delivering on the plan. The success of the plan will depend on early delivery of services, because this is what the public will buy into.

I welcome this Bill. The continued investment in our railways to ensure safety has to be paramount. Discussions must take place with the unions on the issue of intoxication. At what stage is safety taken seriously if people put in charge of public transport are not alcohol and drug free? Public investment in transport must come with reform of work practices. There must be zero tolerance on the issue of substance abuse in public transport.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I also welcome the Bill. All the points I wished to make have already been made. I support the point made that the commission must be answerable to public representatives. Bodies have been created that are independent of the Oireachtas and, as in the case of the National Roads Authority, eventually become answerable to no-one. Senator McDowell referred to the importance of looking at the health and safety legislation at the same time as looking at the worthwhile provisions in this Bill. We must be absolutely sure that these provisions dovetail and that there is no possibility of conflict between them.

The overcrowding on trains is a very serious problem, but it is taken for granted. I remember an accident on the DART years ago in Dalkey where it was the people standing on the train who were injured. It has also been the findings of investigations into other rail crashes that those who were standing are far more vulnerable. I believe it happened in Cherryville as well. I hope that we address this difficult issue which happens generally at the weekends, although frankly I have rarely been on a train to Cork that was not overcrowded. I share Senator MacSharry's disappointment that the western rail corridor will not be continued to Collooney. We still have a sort of partitionist attitude about that part of the country. It seems to get extraordinarily isolated in all the deals that are done for it. Transport between Sligo and Letterkenny is very difficult.

I would finally like to make a point about this legislation and accidents on the DART, Luas and so on. Accidents involving the Luas have nothing to do with the Luas, but with cars going through the lights. Enforcing the Road Traffic Acts regarding cars is needed to deal with these accidents. I have not once seen a Luas going through the lights, yet I repeatedly see cars going through the lights, particularly at places like Queen Street and at the end of Gardiner Street. I suggest that accidents on the new Luas lines to be introduced will be curtailed by the enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts and not by this legislation. Nonetheless, I do welcome the Bill and I hope it goes speedily through the House.

I am pleased that the emphasis has been on safety and on the improvements in safety over the past few years. Like many other people, I am bitterly disappointed in the way Iarnród Éireann has scaled down freight activities. It has obviously scaled down for economic reasons, but what disappoints me is the lack of incentive for companies to go into rail freight. I come from Foynes and in the past there was a traditional railway line operating from Limerick to Foynes. There was a very effective service for the Mogul mining company, where the ore and other deposits were transported to Foynes by rail. It made economic sense to bring this material from the different locations and it also took heavy trucks off the busy N21.

In recent times, there have been mining activities in Lisheen and in Galmoy and those mines are not very far from a railway line. The company states that it is cheaper to transport goods by road, which may be true, but there is much pressure put on our road network by heavy trucks and that is disappointing. Such restrictions should be built into the planning conditions, which are quite onerous for mining operations. There should be some incentive or encouragement for companies to use rail so the pressure can be taken off roads. It is a far more sustainable way to transport the ore. The line in Foynes has been lying idle as there is no longer any great transport activity.

The recent announcement on rail transport and rail services shows the lack of foresight in the past when railway lines were closed. I now live in Newcastle West, which is thought to be one of the fastest expanding towns in Europe. It has become a dormitory town for many industries in the surrounding area.

That is good public representation.

Quite a number of people will drive to Limerick as the road network is very modern. They can buy a house in Newcastle West as it is much cheaper than in Limerick city and its suburbs. If they live on the Newcastle West side of the city, they will often get to their factory destination quicker than if they lived on the opposite side of the city. However, the retrograde step was taken many years ago to close down the railway line. It is a pity we did not have some foresight on that occasion. Charleville Station is very modern and Kilmallock is quite close by. The train passes through Kilmallock and the station there needs upgrading. We should look at opening Kilmallock Station for certain train times as it is very important for an expanding town and community. In the other direction, we have been looking at opening up the line from Ennis to Claremorris. While that is desirable, we should look at the extended network and see where it is possible to open stations, such as that in Kilmallock.

The train service has improved considerably to different locations. However, people in Sligo will be envious when they see these aerodynamic trains operating from Cork next year and compare it with the final part of the line to Sligo, where the train must slow down to 15 km/h. I wonder whether those in the west still feel deprived. Opening up the line to Claremorris and extending it to Sligo in the future is a very long-term project. Regrettably, people do not think in the long term and there is an immediacy when taking decisions. Much of what is in this transport plan takes a long-term viewpoint. Many of the measures to be taken will occur after the next general election. That is why people are dubious about the plan. The Government embraced too much in this plan and went for the big bang launch. There were similar launches in the past, such as that for the National Development Plan 2000-06. That road infrastructure and much of the rail infrastructure was a component of that plan but it did not happen.

There was a big launch for the national spatial strategy but who talks about it now? There was also a big launch for the reform of the health service but the past year has shown the type of difficulties that prevail there. Similarly, much of the transport launch this week was for the optics to give the impression the Government is doing something for the future. However, I wonder about the scale of, and intention behind, all of this. It has left many people behind. I read in one of the newspapers today about the Taoiseach planting a tree five years ago at the location of a proposed community college in Athy. The tree is progressing but the people have not seen the school, despite a commitment given. It is why people must be dubious when they see the grand scale of the transport plans.

There was considerable hostility among members of the business community who were inconvenienced and lost out economically during the construction of the Luas lines, lines which have not met. We were all aware of the publicity and of the criticism levelled at public representatives. However, that was a small scale project. The Minister said St. Stephen's Green will be like Grand Central Station. That is nonsense. Some 69 lines meet in Grand Central Station in New York City. The Minister should get real in respect of St. Stephen's Green.

Proportionately.

"Proportionately" was the word for which I was looking.

I am sure Senator Dooley will react to my sentiments on the following issue. He will be aware of the concern in the mid-west region about the open skies policy. To a certain degree, people in the area have embraced the open skies concept. The Minister said it will happen. The Mid West Regional Authority and the business interests in the area have accepted it but have asked for a number of years to develop the infrastructure. The important infrastructure in the area is a spur line from the Limerick-Ennis line to Shannon but all that is in the plan for the future is a feasibility study. When will that be undertaken? What will happen in regard to that infrastructure?

With regard to tourism in that area, thank God for the person who was described as a "bootboy" in the House yesterday. He is a reputable man in Ryanair. As far as people in the area are concerned, he has energised it because he has brought in many flights from different parts of Europe and, as a result, the area has picked up. However, what happens when these tourists want to go to the west? The Ennis-Galway road is Third World infrastructure.

The transport plan announced earlier this week is good on promises but what about the performance aspect? People are measured on performance and not on promises, especially by a sceptical, cynical public which looks at issues in that way. The open skies policy is likely to hit the mid-west region in the near future and will have a financial impact on the region. This transport plan was a chance to give something back to the area but that was not done. I would say "a lot more to be done". As a representative of the mid-west area, I am a little disappointed and I do not think the Mid West Regional Authority will look at it as something it wants. Members of the authority have told me that if the plan is to be implemented over five years it will not provide the infrastructure in the area.

It wanted the river crossing and the Gort-Crusheen bypass, and it got them.

Senator Dooley spoke earlier and I listened with great interest to what he said. He praised all and sundry. It is not for me as an Opposition Member to do that. Many of the commitments made have not been delivered.

The Senator should give some credit.

I will give credit where it is due.

The Senator does.

I am a constructive politician.

The Senator is on a negative track today. It is not like him.

It is not negative. Senator Dooley represents the mid-west region. I read in a newspaper that he is likely to be a candidate in Clare in the next general election, and good luck to him.

It is up to the delegates.

I hope the issues about which I spoke do not come back to haunt him. I will remind the people in the area that when I spoke about the open skies policy and the changes to be made, Senator Dooley said I was negative. I will tell The Clare Champion what he said to me. Senator Dooley likes publicity.

The Senator has one minute remaining.

This confrontation is terrible. It was so peaceful earlier.

Now comes the positive bit.

I will not go over the issue of Midleton, Navan and the signs erected by the poor Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, which read "Dempsey Delivers". Part of what was promised in 1999 will be delivered in 2010 and the other part in 2015. God help the poor Minister if he must wait that length of time. Having made my usual constructive contribution, I will sit down.

I am glad to contribute to the debate and welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power. We are all aware that after the derailment in Knockcrockery in November 1997, the then Minister commissioned an independent review on safety. Like other Senators, I compliment the former Minister, Senator O'Rourke, who fought hard at Cabinet level for funding for her Department and to try to make safety an issue.

Listening to the debate on Transport 21 in recent days, I was amazed to hear people say all we have done is make a few railway lines safe. It is important to make railway lines safe. Over the years perhaps this issue was not given the attention it deserved by Iarnród Éireann and CIE. However, during Senator O'Rourke's and Deputy Brennan's time in the Department, a strong emphasis was placed on safety. For example, near Tuam, Iarnród Éireann sought to lift the line but only for the intervention of the former Minister, Deputy Brennan, we would not have it back. Thankfully, it has been included in Transport 21 in the context of the line from Ennis to Claremorris. We will press hard for that work to be done as quickly as possible.

I was in the House in 1975 when the decision was taken to abolish freight and passenger services on the Sligo-Limerick line. In Opposition, I fought as best I could to keep it open because I knew it was an important line which passes through my constituency. Unfortunately, the Government of the day did not see it that way, although I am thankful the line was left.

What year was that?

The decision was taken in 1975 to abolish these services on this line.

The year 1997 is usually the one mentioned.

I am sure the then Minister, Peter Barry, did his best but Iarnród Éireann, unfortunately, had, and always has, a very negative attitude. We will have a battle with Iarnród Éireann to try to provide this service which is so badly need.

When I think of the railway lines and safety, I think of the Asahi plant in Mayo and the dangerous goods which were transported to it by rail. It was very important to have a railway there. Even with the railway line, there was the odd accident. Of course, there were similar accidents on the road involving Asahi. I have always made the point that with the growth of the timber industry in the north west and west and with plants such as Masonite in Carrick-on-Shannon, Clonmel and Waterford, there is a strong case to be made for bringing timber goods along the line from Sligo to Limerick and down to Waterford. It is still my ambition and, I am sure, that of the Government to try to divert as much timber to the railway line because probably too much of that product is being transported by road. The same could be said for cement, coal and other products.

I am glad Senator Finucane referred to freight. However, I am also concerned about the way many of the level crossing at smaller railway stations have been changed. I am sure it is a great idea for a computer to open and close gates at railways stations, and I am all for the use of computers. I am not sure how this will work given the current delays in services. It will be all well and good if trains arrive on time but it is hard to beat a level crossing manned by a local person. Is the Minister of State happy with the conversion to the automated system? Unfortunately, many rail accidents involve cars and other vehicles and many questions remain regarding such accidents.

I refer to the train station at Athenry, County Galway. Every station has a turnout, which allows trains to switch tracks. For a reason that has never been explained, the turnout was removed at Athenry Station a number of years ago. We fought hard for this decision to be reversed but we were told that could not happen. However, it must be changed because Transport 21 provides that the Ennis to Athenry rail line should be open by 2009 at the latest. The turnout must be addressed first.

The provision of a service between Ennis and Athenry and, ultimately, Galway to serve north Clare and south Galway is important. We are lucky an early morning service is provided between Athlone and Galway serving Ballinasloe, Woodlawn and Athenry but I support the provision of additional stops at Oranmore and Renmore, which have large populations. People in these areas would welcome a commuter service. Such a service should be provided in Galway, given the important role it would play for commuters and students who currently cannot reach Galway city by train until 10.15 a.m. at the earliest, as they are dependent on the train from Dublin. Such issues must be examined.

The legislation provides for matters relating to light rail and the metro and, for that purpose, proposes to amend the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. Ambitious and welcome plans have been announced for a metro and Luas and DART extensions in Dublin. The spur to Dublin Airport is particularly important, given that Dublin must be the only capital city in Europe without a rail link to its airport. I attended a conference in London two weeks ago and my travel options from Heathrow Airport to London city centre were amazing. They were also available at reasonable prices. The frequency of service and fares are issues that can be dealt with later.

I have been a member of the western inter-county railway committee, which was set up by Fr. Micheál MacGréil, since 1979. Even though I resigned from the county council in 1991, the committee was good enough to co-opt me. The committee is glad that it will have a presence on the western rail corridor implementation committee and I hope Fr. MacGréil will take up this position. If the rail corridor programme is to be fast tracked and the line extended to Claremorris, such representation will be needed. I also hope the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs will be represented on the implementation committee, given that the Department has been heavily involved in the western rail project. Last Tuesday the Minister spoke in Claremorris about his role and that of his Department in securing the extension of the line north of Claremorris to Collooney through the erection of fencing and the removal of undergrowth. A positive outcome of the decentralisation programme is the move of the National Roads Authority to Ballinasloe and the railway commission's offices to both Ballinasloe and Loughrea. This will greatly benefit the west.

I am delighted that most of the roads projects under the national development plan are coming in ahead of their deadlines. The Loughrea road project has been completed a few months ahead of its deadline. I had the honour of walking the new road last Monday with other Oireachtas Members and county councillors to raise money for Loughrea Lions Club and Loughrea Athletic Club. It was historic to walk the road before its official opening in three weeks. It is an excellent road, which has been very much welcomed by the people of Loughrea, who have experienced gridlock for many years.

Railway safety is an important issue and I hope the Minister of State will respond to the issues I raised regarding level crossings, signalling and the transport of goods such as timber, cement and coal on the rail network.

It is clear from the Bill's Title that it dates back to 2001, when the Leader was Minister for Public Enterprise. Her initiative on the rail safety programme was a major turning point in the history of the rail network in Ireland because, until that time, it was pretty much scrimp and save and care and maintenance.

I thank the Senator.

The safety record, partly thanks to the grace of God, has been good on our railways but a number of high profile accidents across the water underline the fact that many casualties can result from such incidents. This issue deserves the priority it has been given but it serves a dual purpose. At the same time the railway is made safe, its capacity to carry traffic at higher speeds is increased.

I question the definition of "train" in the legislation, which states, "'Train' means a vehicle with flanged wheels designed to operate on a railway for whatever purpose, and includes carriages and rolling stock". A beet train has wagons and bogies, not carriages and, therefore, the definition does not adequately cover goods trains. The Minister of State might examine that before Committee and Report Stages. Section 4(3) states the Act "does not apply to the operation of railway infrastructure solely for industrial use...". I presume that refers to the Bord na Móna rail network. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify that point.

I agree with the functions being assigned to the railway commission. I approve of the inclusion of specific provisions regarding the attendance of members of the commission at Oireachtas committees. In the past people felt they had discretion to refuse to attend.

I listened with a mixture of amusement and frustration to Opposition statements on the Government's record on railway investment since 1997. Very little can be said on initiatives taken on the other side of the House. The Leader quoted from Building on Reality, which stated there would be no more investment in rail. That was proposed in the context of the DART, which Pádraig Faulkner mentions in his memoirs. The new carriages that we are still using were put on railways. I recall a conversation with the late Deputy Jim Mitchell who was the then Minister for Transport. Those decisions were implemented during the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government and they drew a line under that.

In the 1987-94 period there was not much investment on this side of the House. Arrow trains were introduced, a sop when all investment was in roads. The initiative for the Dublin-Belfast railway came from the North. Rail investment has taken off since 1997. The Book of Estimates for 1997, produced by Deputy Quinn, provided for zero funding for rail. A complete transformation has taken place since then. I see new green trains at Limerick Junction, due to come into service at the end of the year. Works on the DART lines have been completed and the Luas has been a stunning success.

Although people criticise the capacity of this side of the House to deliver, much change, investment and improvement has taken place. In the 1997 rainbow coalition Government 20 point plan there is no reference to public transport. No thought was given to dealing with congestion. I would have liked the Opposition to be more positive when making comparisons.

The comments by the Ryanair chief executive about the airport metro plan being a waste will probably go into the annals in the same way as remarks describing Knock Airport as foggy and boggy.

He is a bootboy.

I use Ryanair from time to time but if there were not a rail link from Stansted I would not do so. The Government is investing in a facility from which Ryanair will benefit to a considerable extent and in this context the remarks are outrageous.

Hear, hear.

He has got Senator Mansergh excited.

I resent the attitude that if one is sufficiently wealthy and successful one can be arrogant and rude and can attack the Taoiseach in terms the Opposition would hesitate to use.

Except the Labour Party.

A degree of respect for the country from which one has launched a hugely successful enterprise across Europe would not be out of order. If one can afford to buy a taxi licence, which is a complete abuse, and one lives in Gigginstown House, one does not have the same problems in getting to Dublin Airport as ordinary people.

He is a transport expert and one must recognise that.

He is a rich pig.

Ordinary people coming through Dublin or from Dublin at rush hour must spend much time travelling.

Regarding waste, let us consider the waste of tarmac as we seek to accommodate more and more cars and the waste of energy as people wait in traffic for hours while travelling to the airport. The access to Dublin Airport is grossly inefficient under any economic criteria and that must be considered.

Mr. O'Leary is correct on the price of car parking in Dublin Airport and he is correct about Aircoach, a great service.

The price of car parking is outrageous and the reason Mr. O'Leary is objecting is because he hoped to build his private terminal and charge customers. This is transparent and the chairman of Aer Rianta, in evidence to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport, stated that many operators in Dublin Airport were totally opposed to the metro. I wrote to him on this matter and now they have revealed themselves. Apart from this element there has been a general welcome for the metro.

Senator Mansergh is being unfair to Mr. O'Leary. We would not be able to fly out of this country without him.

He may be very progressive on air travel but in terms of surface travel this is 1960s discredited transport economics.

I could not agree more. I heard our spokesman speak on this matter earlier. I take great umbrage that these comments are made about the Taoiseach. If Deputy Kenny were Taoiseach, and he never will be——

The Leader will be surprised, Deputy Kenny will be the next Taoiseach.

Senator Burke will be very high up in that case.

In what year will that happen?

The next century. If Deputy Kenny or, perish the thought, Deputy Rabbitte were Taoiseach I would say the exact same thing. For an aviation bootboy, as I described him yesterday, to treat the legitimately elected Taoiseach in this way is obnoxious. Mr. O'Leary earns his money from the people of this land and I do not know why his treatment of a democratically elected Taoiseach does not spark a revolt. I commend Senator Mansergh on the strong manner in which he has spoken, as I do myself. Of course Mr. O'Leary facilitated travel for millions of people but does that entitle him to be an obnoxious, hateful pig and a bootboy? I do not think so. There is such a thing as manners but he does not have any. What a silly person he is but we are here to talk about the Railway Safety Bill and I am here to praise it, as it is my Bill.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House and the officials with whom I laboured long and dutifully. This Bill was published four years ago and we worked strongly on it. The Bill was part of the prongs of the safety arrangements put in place. I remember a railway engineer writing to me from Scotland when we were investigating railway safety. He wrote that if I drafted this legislation I would sleep easy in my bed as the railways of the country would be safe. That is exactly what I was able to do and I am glad I have said this.

The dreadful Knockcroghery accident, in which nobody was killed because they were cushioned by the walls, occurred on the same day as the inauguration of President McAleese. We could have been at funerals that day rather than the inauguration. I did not rest and came to the Cabinet on three separate occasions seeking the guts of €1,000 million. On the first day I was laughed out of it, but not so much on the second day. On the third day, they said "Yes" and we went ahead with the railway safety work. I wish to thank all those who took part in that work and devised the strategies. Three funding tranches were required to get it working, otherwise the railways would have been dead.

In 1984, the coalition Government said there would be no more investment in railways. I often wonder how the Minister of the day rested easy knowing there had been a severe rail accident in 1981 resulting in many deaths. In addition, numerous warnings had been issued by CIE that it could not keep the trains going. How could one be a Minister with responsibility for public transport and sleep easy knowing that safety measures were not being carried out? It was the most remarkable volte face I could ever have envisaged and I could not do it myself. I informed the Cabinet that I could not remain in office if this was not done. The action was taken then and it means that everything planned in the Transport 21 initiative can happen. It could not have happened, however, if the tracks had not been made safe. One may as well stay at home if the tracks and level crossings are unsafe. Some 800 or 900 safety improvements have been undertaken and thank goodness for that because they were such a bugbear.

A great fuss has been made because the ESB is getting private contractors to undertake work. CIE also engaged outside contractors because it did not have the personnel or know-how to do that safety work. That was allowed because people knew their jobs depended upon it, as did the continuation of the railways.

I will always be grateful and appreciative of the opportunity I had, not just figuratively but literally, to put my stamp on the railways of Ireland. I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, for whom I have a high regard, but a Minister with responsibility for the railways should be a rural Deputy from outside Dublin. Trains are needed in rural areas. I consulted a book, which I am launching next week, and noted that most of the previous Ministers with responsibility for public transport were from outside the capital. They would need to have been because they knew the role railways play in Irish life.

I am glad that a provision for drug and alcohol testing is included in the Bill, which is very important. The matter may have been questioned constitutionally and in other regards, but I am glad the provision has been included because it is very necessary.

Railway journeys are recorded all over the world and people appreciate them as well as being interested in the mysterious nature of international rail travel. In Ireland, people kept on saying they wanted new trains but I suggested that we have to get the tracks right before new carriages are introduced. New railcars are currently being put into operation because the essential safety measures have been put in place.

I want to record my thanks to Senator Mansergh because when I was pushing this agenda in Cabinet and not getting very far, behind the scenes he did his usual diplomatic stuff and was able to ease my path to a certain extent. It was a fight worth having and one worth winning. The people of Ireland will benefit, not just now but for years to come. It was the first major upgrading of the railways.

I recall seeing the fish-plate following the train crash in Knockcroghery which is about 15 miles from Athlone. A CIE official pointed out that the fish-plate dated from 1872. I thought to myself, "This has never been looked at since 1872 and here we are putting trains on them and packing those trains with people". I got a big shock which affected me deeply. I remember thinking that there was only one way out of the situation no matter what it cost. The choice was quite stark because one could have opted to close the railways apart from the main lines from Dublin to Cork, Galway and Belfast. That would have left us with no rail network.

Interestingly, the year I came into Government in 1987, when there were major cutbacks because of everything that had occurred in the previous four years, a proposal was put to us by the Department of Finance that we should stop the railway at Athlone and not go further west over the Shannon to Galway. I remember laughing at that suggestion.

The odd train still stops at Athlone.

Of course, it stops to let passengers off.

I mean that it breaks down.

I am sure it does. Imagine, however, that a Minister in that coalition Government stood over the lack of repair of railways tracks around the country. It is a holy disgrace.

To be fair, there were several Ministers, including Senator O'Rourke's predecessors.

Order, please.

Of course there were, but I do not know how they lived with the job or managed to carry it out responsibly.

The Senator is correct in stating that the trains stop at Athlone to let people off. I had a vision that a train would stop in the middle of the bridge at Athlone while crossing the Shannon. In my vision everybody would say, "This is as far as we are going". The Department of Finance's proposal was laughed out of it, of course, because no matter what cutbacks were to be entertained trains would still be crossing the Shannon in the same way as Sarsfield's men did.

I thank the Minister of State for attending the House to introduce this Bill. The measure raises many memories in my mind of the safety regime upon which my Department embarked four years ago. These events have exercised my mind as I listened to today's debate. I thank our party's spokesperson on transport, as well as the Opposition spokespersons, who referred so kindly to my role in the legislation. I appreciate their comments. The Minister of State also referred to me in his script for which I thank him. I thank his officials in particular for all the work they have put into the Bill.

I thank Senators for their varied and interesting contributions to this debate. I am particularly pleased that the House has demonstrated its commitment to promoting rail safety by supporting the modernisation of the regulatory framework as proposed in this Bill. I appreciate the good wishes that have been expressed concerning the launch by my Department of the Transport 21 plan. I appreciate the kind comments about that plan that have been expressed to me both in the Chamber and outside it. I have been promoting some of the projects since my appointment to the Department of Transport.

That is true.

I was happy to be in a position to lead the way in developing some of our rail capacity as reflected in the Transport 21 plan. I am particularly pleased that that initiative has now come to fruition in a manner I envisaged even before assuming my current portfolio.

As the Leader of the House knows, when other countries examined rail safety issues they decided to expand their rail fleet capacity. An important lesson was learned in some of those countries because such expansion led to severe problems which in certain cases caused injury both to train passengers and railway workers. The Leader of the House must be congratulated on securing the three investment tranches for safety issues over that 15-year period from when she initiated it in 1999 to 2013. In that time, we will have spent €1.4 billion, which is some achievement. Senator O'Rourke had to make a political call on what should come first and what should constitute the foundation of the legislation. She certainly emphasised that it should be founded on the structural and safety aspects. She made the correct call and I congratulate her in that regard. It is important that this be put on the record.

A number of questions were asked, to which I will try to respond, albeit very briefly. The Bill provides for a modern regulatory framework for a modern and expanding railway transport network. It should serve us well for many years. The two principal features are the creation of an independent railway safety regulator, the railway safety commission, and the appointment of an independent rail accident investigator. The Bill is innovative in that it provides for the testing of safety-critical workers for alcohol and drugs and makes it a criminal offence to be intoxicated while working on a railway.

A number of Senators, including Senator Paddy Burke, who is present in the House, referred to overcrowding. This will be addressed through the provision of the modern rolling stock and additional capacity. Senator Paddy Burke should note that section 69 of the Bill empowers the railway safety commission to make regulations limiting the number of passengers permitted to stand on a train at any given time.

A valid point was made by Senator Paddy Burke on level crossings. Much good work was done in this regard and significant progress was made. We should not lose sight of this fact. Iarnród Éireann is putting in place a programme for addressing the outstanding issues associated with level crossings. I have asked my officials to speak to the Senator about the issues he raised. He will be impressed and satisfied with the response he will receive.

On the issue of freight, an EU directive provides for the opening up of the freight market. With effect from January 2006, private operators will be able to enter the Irish market if they so wish.

Senator McDowell referred to the Health and Safety Authority. There will be some overlap in the responsibilities of that authority and those of the railway safety commission. A memorandum of understanding is being negotiated to avoid any difficulties in this regard.

On the question of overcrowding on intercity trains, I am delighted to be able to indicate to Senator McDowell that 67 new carriages are already earmarked for the Cork route, to which he referred. They are to be in use by the end of 2006. Much good work is also being done on other routes. A total of 120 intercity railcars are to be put in place on other routes by the end of 2007. Iarnród Éireann is introducing seat reservation systems for intercity services on a phased basis. A safety case system is already in use on the part of Connex Transport Ireland, the operator of Luas.

Senator Terry referred to dangerous goods being carried by Iarnród Éireann. They are carried in conformity with EU directives and regulations. She also mentioned the Madrid incident. I am pleased to indicate that, following that incident, Iarnród Éireann carried out an extensive review of the recommendations on railway security and safety, most of which are already being implemented.

Senator Terry also referred to park-and-ride facilities. I fully support their development and it is very important that they be strategically based. It has been put to me that we should only have rail-based park-and-ride facilities but I do not support that view. I have indicated quite clearly that I am open to both rail-based and bus-based park-and-ride facilities. There is scope for both. The Senator also referred to the throwing of stones at trains. The Bill makes this an offence.

Some Senators on the Government side made some very interesting points. Senator Mansergh made a fair point on the definitions of "rolling stock" and "train" but their definition in the Bill meets his concerns. The issue is well covered.

On Senator Wilson's point, the Attorney General has confirmed to me that the provisions will withstand constitutional scrutiny on the basis that the balance struck by the Legislature between the private rights of individuals and those of the public is proportionate. In giving this advice, he was conscious of the limited application of the random testing provisions to safety-critical railway workers and the potentially catastrophic consequences for large numbers of people of mistakes in the operation, maintenance or repair of the railway system. I cannot stress this point strongly enough. I thank the Senator for giving me the opportunity to clarify this issue.

Senator Dooley, the spokesman on transport, referred to a number of issues. I thank him for his kind and positive comments on the Bill. I know he has a particular interest in two of the points he made because he has raised them with me on a number of occasions. The first concerns the need for a Shannon rail link. I am pleased to confirm that the feasibility study on the Shannon rail link will be undertaken on behalf of Iarnród Éireann in the coming months. I hope we will be able to return to the Senator with positive news thereon. I am aware of his deep anxiety to see real progress regarding this issue given the benefits that would accrue to the Shannon region as a consequence. We will examine closely the outcome of the study and my officials and I will take the opportunity to discuss it with the Senator.

I thank the Leader for her very positive contribution. She is quite correct.

It would be strange if I did not speak in favour of my own Bill.

As the Senator put it, it is her Bill. I salute her and pay tribute to her on its very progressive and innovative provisions.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 8 November 2005.
Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn