This is a technical amendment to include in section 3 a reference to the commencement order provision in section 92.
Railway Safety Bill 2001: Committee Stage.
I ask the Minister of State to stand while addressing the House.
I apologise. It is normal practice to provide that commencement orders do not need to be confirmed by a resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.
This amendment relates to certain miniature railways operating in fairground type situations. It is self-explanatory and gives discretion to the commission to apply the provisions of the Bill where it feels that the risk involved in the operation of such a miniature railway is more akin to general railway risk than to that of afunfair ride.
As amendments Nos. 3 and 29 are consequential on amendment No. 51, they may be discussed together, by agreement.
This amendment addresses a proposal made on Report Stage in the Dáil to place the Irish language version of the names of the commission and the advisory council before the English versions.
The purpose of this amendment is to update section 10 of the Bill in light of the enactment of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. This required updating the reference to the Health and Safety Authority arising from the 2005 Act. We are deleting the paragraph referring to making an agency agreement. The agency agreement concept in the Health and Safety Act 1989 is not repeated in the 2005 Act. I have also added a new subsection giving the commission legal power to perform any functions it takes on from the HSA or any other such body. Legal advice suggested this was necessary and similar provision is made in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 20 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
This matter was raised by a number of Members, including Senator Paddy Burke. I am pleased to move this amendment to delete the references to the Civil Service and Local Appointments Commissioners. The Public Appointments Service is now the appropriate body to select candidates for appointment as commissioners or staff of the commission.
I am delighted the Minister of State has agreed to amend the Bill in this regard.
Under what circumstances would the commission need to borrow?
The Senator has made a good point. I am led to believe this is an all-inclusive provision rather than an actual set target. The commission is being given the provision to borrow. While we would not be au fait with the circumstances that may arise in the future, this gives it the safety net should it be required.
I am not clear on what the Minister of State has said. Provision is made for grants to the commission or for levies to be introduced. Could the Minister of State envisage circumstances in which the commission would need to borrow? I ask him to give the House an example?
I would like to think the provision would never need to be utilised and that the Houses of the Oireachtas and any other body would be able to react sufficiently quickly to a commission request thereby avoiding the need for such borrowing. For example, an inquiry could take place at a time when, for one reason or another, the commission's budget was exhausted. We know the bureaucratic system. If the commission had to go through a system prior to an approval, it might be in a position where we would want it to borrow to ensure the inquiry would have continuity and could make a seamless investigation. Those are the circumstances in which I would envisage the need to borrow.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 26, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The Minister shall supply to one or both Houses of the Oireachtas such information regarding the performance of the Commission's functions as may from time to time be required by a member of either House.".
I spoke on Second Stage about the issue of the commission being accountable to the Dáil. With the Health Service Executive and the National Roads Authority the line Minister can pass the buck. The proposed railway safety commission is another instance where the buck can be passed and where the Minister does not appear to have any real accountability. If there is to be accountability, the commission must be accountable, whether by way of parliamentary questions to the Dáil or through an Adjournment debate in the Seanad. Time and again Adjournment debates we have requested concerning the NRA or the HSE have been ruled out. I suggest this amendment in the hope that the Minister of State will accept or amend it. There should be some form of accountability to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I thank Senator Burke for proposing this amendment because it teases out this issue on which I know other Members also have concerns. The issue is tied to Senator Burke's inquiries re his previous amendment relating to appointments to the commission.
On the matter of the provision of information to the Houses, I draw the Senator's attention to the fact that this Bill includes a range of provisions dealing with the commission's accountability and the provision of information. Section 28 of the Bill requires publication of the annual reports and accounts of the commission while section 28(5) requires the commission to provide information to the Minister of the day with regard to the performance of its functions. Section 31 makes the commission accountable to committees of the Oireachtas. In addition, there are established parliamentary procedures to allow questions to be put to the Minister and allow motions to be tabled on matters that fall within the area of responsibility. The combined arrangements provide Members with a broad range of information.
I acknowledge that when we have a separate authority, in this case the commission, carrying out its duty, a question asked by a Member of the Minister of the day on the subject of the authority's daily responsibilities and duties, including by way of parliamentary question, is often referred to the authority in question. I acknowledge this ambiguity regarding a satisfactory level of response on such issues. However, the amendment tabled by Senator Burke regarding the performance of the commission's function is adequately catered for in the Bill as published.
I am reluctant to depart from procedures that have a precedent and have been tried and tested. I acknowledge there is an issue relating to day-to-day activity, as pointed out by Senators Paddy Burke, Dooley and Wilson after Second Stage. There is an issue in that regard, but we need to separate that issue from what we intend the commission to do.
I thank the Minister of State for his outline of the case. However, annual reports are issued at the rate of a dime a dozen, all glossy magazines that, no doubt, are well put together but read by nobody. Oireachtas Members are accountable to the public and need to get information, but the only real way they can get it is either through a parliamentary question or an Adjournment debate. However, their questions or debates are ruled out, as we have seen with regard to the NRA and the HSE, on the basis that the Minister does not have direct involvement in the running of such bodies. This commission will be the third such body. This, therefore, is a golden opportunity to amend the Bill in a way that will provide that Members can make such commissions accountable through the relevant Minister.
My amendment may need some adjustment, as the Minister of State outlined and I urge him to amend it between now and Report Stage. I will consider submitting a revised amendment on Report Stage if he does not accept my amendment today. All Members, including those on the Government side, feel strongly on the issue of information, accountability and getting answers to questions by way of parliamentary questions and Adjournment debates. I urge the Minister of State to have another look at the issue. If he does not accept my amendment now I ask him to consider it between now and Report Stage.
I ask the Minister of State to consider this amendment. Senator Burke is genuine in his effort to resolve the issue. Many of us recognise there is a problem with regard to accountability of various State agencies. It would be helpful if the Minister of State had another look at the issue. If he cannot do it on Committee Stage, perhaps something can be done for Report Stage.
I thank Senators Dooley and Paddy Burke for their comments. I acknowledge Members experience difficulties in this area and I recall having difficulty and being frustrated when tabling parliamentary questions in the past. However, perhaps this Bill is not the place to try and change what we clearly acknowledge and recognise as a bigger issue.
I draw to the Senators' attention that the Bill includes a range of established provisions. If we say we are not satisfied with the clearly established provisions, perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or another Oireachtas committee should examine them. The House will appreciate that in introducing the Railway Safety Bill, I am merely dealing with established precedent. The Bill includes such provisions. As Senator Paddy Burke said, section 28 requires the publication of the annual reports and accounts of the proposed railway safety commission. I reiterate that this issue may need to be teased out further. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to examine how best to address the matter.
The Minister of the day is responsible for deciding on the policy issues to be dealt with by any authority of this nature that is established under legislation. In this instance, the relevant Minister will be responsible for the policy issues relating to the proposed commission. Therefore, he or she will be responsible for responding to any questions asked about policy. The commission that will be established by the Houses will have day-to-day responsibility for its operational aspects. That is not to say it will not be answerable — of course it will have to be answerable. Under the current structures, those involved with the commission who have day-to-day operational responsibility will be answerable to an Oireachtas committee. I suppose this is a change we have witnessed since we put in place new structures in the Oireachtas. I hope I have clarified the position in respect of information and accountability.
In light of what I have said, I ask Senator Paddy Burke to consider withdrawing amendment No. 6 at this stage. I assure the Senator that I will ask my departmental officials to contact him in advance of Report Stage to ascertain whether there is any other way of giving him some clarity in this regard. I appreciate this is a bigger issue that relates to bodies other than the proposed commission. It is an issue that affects every other authority that is established by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I have referred the Senator to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for that reason.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I will withdraw amendment No. 6 in line with his comments.
This is simply a technical amendment to change a reference in section 43(5) from "7 days" to "21 days", in line with a similar amendment that was made to section 42(6) on Report Stage in the Dáil.
Amendment No. 8 is a Government amendment. As amendments Nos. 9 and 12 are cognate and amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related, amendments Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement.
I hope this group of straightforward amendments, which has been suggested by the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to improve or correct the text of the Bill, can be approved without delay.
Amendment No. 13 is a Government amendment. As amendments Nos. 14 to 18, inclusive, are cognate and amendment No. 42 is related, amendments Nos. 13 to 18, inclusive, and amendment No. 42 may be discussed together, by agreement.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Members of the House, particularly Senators Wilson and Paddy Burke, for bringing some issues relating to this Bill to my attention. Although a number of similar amendments were made on Report Stage in the Dáil, the amendments in the group before the House were not identified until the Bill came to the Seanad. I thank the Senators in question and I hope the amendments will be approved quickly.
I thank the Minister of State.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 44, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Where a member of staff of a railway undertaking furnishes relevant information to the Commission or an inspector—
(a) following a railway incident,
(b) which, in the opinion of the person, may lead to a railway incident,
the person shall not be subject to disciplinary or any other action by the railway undertaking.".
I have proposed this amendment to try to avoid lapses in safety standards and to ensure that any such lapses are not swept under the carpet. People who act as whistleblowers by reporting accidents or lapses which could cause accidents should not have any fear of being punished or disciplined for reporting such breaches in safety standards. The employees of railway undertakings might be afraid of being disciplined or punished if they report lapses in safety standards. This amendment has been tabled to try to prevent such people from being disciplined or punished in any way.
I thank Senator Paddy Burke for tabling this amendment, which has given me an opportunity to revisit sections 53 and 54 of the Bill. My officials and I discussed at length the issue of the reporting of risk by the staff of railway undertakings and contractors. I draw the Senator's attention to section 54(3) of the Bill, which is important. The section states:
Where a member of staff of a railway undertaking or other person working under a contract of services with a railway undertaking informs the Commission of his or her opinion in accordance with subsection (2), he or she shall not be disciplined, be held to be in breach of contract or in any other way disadvantaged for the fact that he or she has informed the Commission.
I hope the final part of that section, in particular, satisfies Senator Burke.
I welcome the Minister of State's remarks and I withdraw the amendment.
This amendment will allow the Minister to appoint a suitably qualified consultant to act as and carry out the functions of the chief investigator if the person holding that position is absent for a prolonged period of time, through ill health or otherwise. If the post of chief investigator is vacant at any point, this section will provide for the recruitment of a permanent replacement.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 55, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following new paragraphs:
"(b) requirements for the maintenance and inspection of railway infrastructure, rail track, permanent way and rolling stock,
(c) the maximum carrying capacity for both passenger and freight trains,
(d) the maximum hours of work and the minimum hours of rest for safety critical staff,”.
Section 69 is very detailed and covers a considerable number of areas relating to safety. This amendment deals with the number of passengers and freight capacity that can be carried. These are issues which should be set out. The amendment also covers the setting aside of time for rest breaks for staff.
I appreciate the Senator's perspective on this issue and I hope my response will satisfy him. Telling railway undertakings how often they should inspect and maintain their infrastructure and trains would be a very prescriptive approach. These undertakings are best placed to know how frequently such inspections and maintenance should be carried out. If we did prescribe these measures but were seen to underprescribe, we could find ourselves wanting and the same would be true if we were seen to overprescribe.
I support Senator Paddy Burke's view regarding the maximum carrying capacity. I draw his attention to section 69(c) of the Bill, which empowers the railway safety commission to make regulations restricting the number of passengers who are allowed to stand on trains. I hope this measure will be helpful.
With regard to hours of work and rest breaks, I expect railway undertakings to demonstrate in their safety cases that the working patterns of their safety critical staff do not contribute to an increased risk on railways.
I welcome the Minister of State's comments because his Department is the expert on this matter. There are problems with overcapacity, particularly on some passenger trains. I am glad he pointed out that he believes it is covered in section 69(c). If the Minister of State is happy with it, I am satisfied.
Iarnród Éireann appears to be moving out of the freight business. Does this Bill have sufficient provisions to cover a greater use of the rail network for freight purposes if rail freight takes off in the private sector and as more money is invested in the rail infrastructure?
We might be found wanting with regard to freight because it is not covered in the same fashion as passenger numbers are dealt with in section 69(c), which is concerned exclusively with passenger numbers. A rolling stock car will have one seat for one passenger or multiples of such. The railway safety commission can make regulations restricting the number of people standing in rolling stock cars, which will lead to the maximum carrying capacity because passengers will be identified as those sitting and standing.
I understand that freight is not covered in the same detail. Restrictions on carrying capacity in road freight transport are in place and the railway safety commission is capable of imposing similar restrictions in rail freight transport.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 56, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(h) requirements to avoid accidental obstruction of railway infrastructure by road vehicles by establishing-
(i) criteria for the apportionment of responsibility and cost of improvements to be made at locations where roads meet, cross or run close to railways,
(ii) guidelines on enhanced risk assessments and physical measures to reduce risk of vehicles accidentally leaving the road and obstructing railway infrastructure,
(iii) reporting mechanisms to identify relevant information on incidents involving vehicles, which obstruct railway infrastructure,".
Could the Minister of State give us his opinion on this amendment?
The Senator raised some valid points regarding this issue on Second Stage. I gave an undertaking to address the matter and progress has been made. Could the Senator inform me later on whether he has received the relevant information from my officials? Section 23 of the Transport Act 1971 provides for the apportioning of the costs of upgrading works at a level crossing between the railway undertaking and the local authority. Section 113 of this Bill makes provisions regarding the responsibility of any person carrying out works on a public road near a railway.
Section 113(4) of this Bill gives the railway safety commission the power to prepare and publish guidelines on works on public roads that may affect the safety of railway infrastructure. Section 69(g) of the Bill gives the commission power to make regulations concerning the reporting of the different classes of railway incidents. If the Senator is satisfied with these provisions, he might consider withdrawing his amendment.
We might find ourselves dealing with level crossings in a different section of the Bill — possibly section 128. If a car, lorry or tractor broke down on a level crossing and an accident occurred, would the railway safety commission have the power to decide which party was responsible for it? It could be a case of a barrier or a signal not working or a gate being improperly opened or closed. Will there be an investigation into who was responsible?
The case of someone maliciously blocking railway infrastructure is covered in section 118 of the Bill. Opening and closing gates, breakdowns and other safety issues are matters for the railway undertaking. I hope this clarifies the position.
This straightforward amendment gives the Minister power to transpose a European directive on railway safety international law through regulations made under this Bill rather than using the European Community Act 1972.
This amendment corrects an oversight brought to my attention by Members of this House. Senator Wilson drew my attention to the fact that there was no mechanism for a commissioner to be appointed as an inspector. This amendment corrects this oversight by providing for a commissioner to automatically become an inspector on appointment.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 63, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) A railway undertaking shall not use commercial considerations as a cause for not complying with section 36.”.
This minor amendment is self-explanatory. We have already dealt with section 36 and I hope the Minister of State will be able to accept this amendment.
I can see good reasons to accept this and I thank Senator Burke for tabling this amendment. I tabled two amendments on Report Stage in response to concerns raised on Committee Stage to address the balance between commercial and safety considerations. A happy medium must be struck. We would like to ensure that the railway undertaking would ensure the safety of persons in the operation of its railway in so far as is reasonably practicable. I draw the attention of Senator Burke to section 36, which indicates it is a matter for a judge and jury to decide what is reasonable to expect a railway undertaking to do to ensure safety in particular circumstances. I am not in a position to give a safety guarantee on anything we do. As a society we decide what is reasonable risk on a daily basis. We must accept some degree of risk exists and there is a wide consensus on the level of risk that is intolerable. Section 36 requires a railway undertaking to manage risk in accordance with societal expectations. I draw the attention of Senator Burke to sections 36, 77(5) and 78(6), which I am led to believe represent the most reasonable approach to this issue. I look forward to Senator Burke's response.
As the Minister of State has stated, we cannot have a situation where commercial interests override the safety issue. If the Minister of State believes my amendment is covered in the sections to which he refers I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. The amendment is technical and a minor adjustment and the Minister of State could accept the amendment without interfering with the Bill.
In the current state of affairs, where we have a State railway, an improvement notice for safety considerations has enormous weight. I do not see how a railway concern could refuse to implement measures because of commercial considerations. If we had a privatised railway, God forbid, the danger might be very real. I do not object to the idea that certain freight companies might run freight across the railway to the extent that Iarnród Éireann is unwilling to do so. I refer primarily to passenger privatised railway. In the case of a State company, a public accountable authority, there would have to be an overwhelming practical or technical reason it would not comply with regulations.
I thank Senators Mansergh and Burke for their contributions. It is well established that industries, particularly transport service industries, have developed well-established techniques to assess public user expectations of what is tolerable.
This section deals with testing for drugs. Does this cover breath testing train drivers? I am sure the section covers testing for drink and drugs. I welcomed this section on Second Stage as we have seen the drug scene grow throughout the country.
I agree with Senator Burke, who referred to breath testing drivers for alcohol. I do not think any level of alcohol should be permitted by people who drive trains or any form of public transport. There is no safe limit and we should implement a system of zero tolerance of this.
I agree with the sentiments of my colleagues. I read somewhere — and perhaps the Minister of State will confirm this — that the trade unions in question are happy with this provision, which in a sense is very much in the interest of their members.
It is important to draw the attention of Members to my comments on this matter on Second Stage. I went into it in some detail and I will not go over the ground I covered other than to draw attention to Parts 9 and 10, which set out the detailed regime for the testing of safety-critical workers. In particular, Part 10 includes provision for breath testing and for blood and urine tests following a breath test. To answer the question posed directly, Part 10 makes provision for this.
I take the point raised by the other Members on the importance of safety and compliance with the legislation in terms of intoxication at any level.
Has this matter been discussed with and agreed by the trade unions?
The Senator might have read in today's edition of The Irish Times of a drink-driving case which has been challenged. Regarding this issue, we are conscious of sensitivities. I understand there have been discussions at different levels involving management, staff and unions. On the Government side, these proposals were considered by the Attorney General, as I said on Second Stage. We are satisfied with the provisions contained in the section.
The need for this amendment was brought to my attention by Members, as in some sections there was an incorrect reference to subsections. This is a technical amendment.
I cannot thank the House enough, especially Senator Wilson, for bringing to my attention a number of areas where technical amendments were required. On this section, the Leader of the House brought to my attention, at my cost, that there was an omission in regard to the female gender in line 45. I am happy to correct that, not only for the Leader but for everybody concerned.
Amendment No. 32 is a Government amendment and amendment No. 33 is related. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 may be taken together by agreement.
This amendment relates to section 111(3). On the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel, I decided to rebalance the penalties for offences, thereby increasing the maximum financial penalty and reducing the maximum prison term. These are more appropriate penalties, as now stated. I am sure the Members will agree that this will give the system useful and appropriate flexibility.
This amendment proposes to increase a financial penalty from €3,000 to €5,000, with which I hope the House will agree.
Amendment No. 35 is a Government amendment, amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are cognate and amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 35 and 37 to 40, inclusive, may be taken together by agreement.
These amendments relate to Part 12 which provides for serious offences by passengers and members of the public on a train or a railway property. On the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel, I propose a number of changes. First, for reasons of tidiness, I propose to delete the penalty provisions of sections 115, 116 and 118 and insert a new penalty section. Second, I propose to update the penalty for a summary offence in line with the recent increase in District Court limits. Third, I propose to rebalance the penalties for offences, thereby increasing the maximum financial penalty and reducing the maximum prison term. A technical change is made to section 119(c) which should more correctly refer to “this Part” rather than “Part 12”.
This amendment proposes a new section providing for a new offence. The new section requires a person to immediately report any hazard to railway safety which he or she causes through some accidental or negligent act. I have in mind an incident in Selby in the UK some years ago where a Land Rover left the road and came to rest on the railway. This caused a rail incident. Other incidents have happened here in recent years where trucks have dislodged material off the side parapet of a bridge causing it to fall onto the railway line below. In such instances, this section will require the person responsible to immediately report the incident to ensure rail traffic is stopped to avoid an accident. A person will be guilty if he or she fails, without a reasonable excuse, to report the incident. I hope this amendment will be helpful.
For this amended clause to become effective, the relevant people, particularly in the haulage industry, will have to be properly notified of their duty in this regard, and this clause could be integrated into various road safety literature and instructions.
I fully accept that point. What we require is good road behaviour, but also awareness and education in this context is fundamental. I accept it will be hard to police this provision. We are talking about awareness, education and co-operation.
I am delighted to be in the House to move this amendment because at the rate technology is going maybe in a couple of years' time I will be pushing buttons to move amendments. This is not quite going that far. It is a technical amendment to accommodate the commission to send by urgent notification to the railway undertakings, communication by e-mail as opposed to fax which is becoming obsolete. I hope it will be agreed to as it is only a technical amendment.
Amendment No. 42 has already been discussed with amendment No. 13.
This amendment is necessary to accommodate CIE to increase the level of guaranteed borrowing power from a restricted £317 million which has been in place for over 20 years to €600 million. This increased borrowing limit will facilitate the speedier progression and management of projects by ensuring there would be an adequate cashflow facility available to the CIE group of companies, particularly in light of the fact that the current borrowing limit has been in place for 20 years. We are all enthusiastic in this House about the fundamental role CIE will play in the new ten-year transport framework that we have rolled out under Transport 21.
I welcome the amendment and I fully share the Minister of State's appreciation of its importance. It is one illustration that the Government is serious about the Transport 21 programme which will require a large amount of investment. As a straw in the wind I saw an advertisement in a newspaper yesterday to do with a public consultation on the extension of the Luas line at Cherrywood. Within a month's time we will have the new railway timetable which will contain substantial progress which is of great interest to people in Tipperary on the hourly Cork-Dublin railway service. We are talking about a vastly increased undertaking where traffic will be way above the levels of 20 years ago so it is entirely appropriate that the straitjacket that was in place in the 1980s would be removed.
I welcome the amendment. With regard to the old borrowing limit, did CIE always borrow to the limit? Was it in excess of its borrowing limit or was the limit ever reached?
Due to regulations CIE was never able to exceed the borrowing limit. It managed to work in accordance with it.
That is a typical civil servant's answer.
I am determined that CIE and its group of companies will play a pivotal role in the roll out of Transport 21 and that we would give them all the necessary tools to ensure they will be able to match our ambitious transport plans and not be handicapped by a low borrowing limit. As Senator Mansergh and I stated, this cap has been in place for over 20 years and it is high time we put a more appropriate figure in place.
In regard to the point raised by Senator Burke, if one goes back to the financing of the DART in the 1980s and 1990s, CIE was forced by various Governments to borrow and the Department of Transport through the Department of Finance helped with the interest payments. The enormous contrast between those days and today is that CIE got no capital moneys from the Government until 1997, although it got some from the EU in the early 1990s. The £317 million was expected to take the full weight of whatever capital developments that were undertaken, the principal one being the DART at that time. Thankfully, Government support to CIE and other public transport bodies is in the range of €400 million to €500 million. We look forward to seeing what the exact figure is in the Book of Estimates tomorrow.
Amendment No. 44 in the name of Senator Burke is ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
This is a straightforward drafting amendment. It is more correct to say, in section 25(1) of the Transport Act 1971 "as amended" by the Transport Act 1987 rather than "inserted".
On the section, I am not happy that my amendment was ruled out of order because of its financial implications and I will consider resubmitting it on Report Stage. The Minister of State might also consider the matter in the meantime. I made a point on Second Stage about unmanned level crossings, of which there are quite a number in my own county around Claremorris and Castlebar where a fatality occurred. With the growth in housing in rural areas, especially around large provincial towns like Castlebar, Ballina and so on, most vehicles, including lorries and tractors and trailers have become larger, heavier and longer. The Sligo line will be fully automated by the end of 2005 or early 2006 but the Castlebar, Westport and Ballina line is not supposed to be fully automated until 2008. A number of other lines throughout the country are no doubt in a similar position.
I thank the Minister of State for agreeing to examine the railway line between Ballina, Castlebar and Westport and stating that he would hope the automation of those unmanned level crossings would take place by early 2006. While I welcome what the Minister of State has said, my amendment would not be specific to an area and its intention is to promote safety. The amendment may have been ruled out of order because of the financial implications of its call for a shorter timescale than the estimated ten to 15 years for the completion of the automation process. I am particularly concerned about the Westport and Ballina line.
It is very important unmanned level crossings are automated because accidents are waiting to happen at them. We are lucky many more tragedies have not occurred. It is gravely important this issue is addressed. I hope the Minister of State will consider amending this section on Report Stage.
I have sympathy with the spirit, although not necessarily with the letter, of the amendment. There is not only the safety consideration but there is also the delay involved where there are many manned level crossings. There is a particular section of line, which is the initial part of the famous western rail corridor between Limerick and Ennis, on which there is a large number of manned level crossings, particularly in the vicinity of Limerick city. That means a train moving through the outskirts of Limerick city goes exceptionally slowly. The total journey takes approximately 45 or 50 minutes and the reason for the length of time it takes is primarily due to the number of manned level crossings. I have known a train to virtually stop until somebody has opened the level crossing.
Obviously, safety is the paramount consideration but there are also considerations regarding efficiency and speed. Eight passenger trains travel in each direction on that line and there may be some freight traffic from further north as well. That demonstrates sufficient frequency. Maximum elimination of manned level crossings should be incorporated into the rail safety programme. Apart from anything else, there must be considerable manpower or womanpower costs associated with maintaining those level crossings which are not terribly efficient in this day and age.
Even on the main Dublin to Waterford line outside Waterford city, there is a manned level crossing on the N9, the upgrading of which was announced yesterday. Each time one closes the barriers on a manned level crossing, one adds two to five minutes to the journey time. It is not only a cost for the railway undertaking. If one is talking about the main route outside Waterford city, one is talking about substantial delays for everyone. It is an issue which should be accorded proper and due importance.
I thank Senator Paddy Burke for dwelling on this point which he made quite forcefully on Second Stage. I indicated we would give certain undertakings in regard to the issues he brought to our attention. I understand amendment No. 44 was ruled out of order because it would give rise to a significant charge on the Exchequer. Section (2)(ii) of Senator Paddy Burke's amendment probably resulted in that ruling.
On Second Stage, Senators Paddy Burke and Wilson raised the issue of level crossings. Ensuring the safe use of all level crossings on the railway network is of paramount importance to me, my Department and Iarnród Éireann. The level of concern is reflected in the programme of work undertaken by Iarnród Éireann since 1999 when the Leader of this House secured funding. A significant level of funding has been approved by this Government.
Between 1999 and 2003, approximately 700 level crossings have been upgraded or closed. That is a significant amount of work. It is worth noting that since 1999 to date, over €800 million in Exchequer funding has been spent on railway safety which is significant. Sadly this type of expenditure is probably not as visible as that spent in other areas. It is, however, crucial and it is right moneys are spent in this way. There is also a commitment that by the end of 2013, moneys spent on safety will exceed €1.4 billion. That gives the House a measure of the commitment of this Government to railway safety.
This is a straightforward technical amendment. An anomaly exists in regard to subsections (1) and (3). One states a Minister can make an order in regard to 14 days while the other refers to a submission period of 30 days. I seek to correct that anomaly.
Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 52 form a composite proposal and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There is a genuine concern regarding the following issue which is why this new Part 17 will form part of the Road Traffic Acts. The main reason for the amendment is to address the very serious risk to railways from bridge strikes by vehicles. Iarnród Éireann and the road authorities have become increasingly concerned about the number of bridge strikes by vehicles. In 2001, 99 bridges were struck by vehicles; in 2002, 136 were stuck; in 2003, 122 were struck; and in 2004, 123 were struck. I understand the provisional figure for 2005 suggests the trend continues to increase.
We have been lucky in regard to these bridge strikes in that we really only have had one serious strike in the history of the State which occurred in Wexford some years ago. Senator Mansergh referred to the DART. If a vehicle struck a bridge with a DART carriage on it, there could be very serious consequences. We are deeply concerned about this issue and, therefore, I propose the inclusion of this amendment.
The Minister of State proposes to insert a new section for, I have no doubt, very good reasons. However, this area will open up the issue of control between local authorities and Iarnród Éireann. For a long time local authorities and Iarnród Éireann have been slow to co-operate. The buck has been passed back and forth from one to the other. This situation has bedevilled railway works, including widening level crossings and improving bridges. In addition, each side blamed the other for the delays.
In the case of this amendment — which, I presume, refers to lorries hitting bridges or level crossings and thus putting the railway line out of action — if damage is done to a railway bridge, will it be the responsibility of the local authority, Iarnród Éireann or both to put it right? Will we revert to square one where the matter goes back and forth from one group of solicitors to another? I have witnessed delays in many small projects which would have improved the lives of many people. For example, minor adjustments could have been made to level crossings but Iarnród Éireann ruled them out on safety or legal grounds so local authorities could not carry out the work or vice versa. One side was always blaming the other. I hope that in this case we will not have a similar situation concerning works that must be carried out. The Minister of State should be more specific as regards this amendment, stating by whom such works will be carried out, so that the local authority or Iarnród Éireann will be responsible for them, rather than both having that responsibility.
This is a serious matter, given the increase in lorry heights and the rise in the number of lorries generally. Far too often, one hears reports of lorries striking parapets or bridges. The legislation should convey a clear message that people who cause such damage carelessly or wantonly will face serious financial consequences. The prosecuting authorities need to be rigorous in this regard. One has the impression that people have been prepared to forgive mistakes in the past, but we have had enough of it now because there are dangerous implications for safety. I presume that road bridges are the responsibility of local authorities, while rail bridges are the responsibility of Iarnród Éireann. Clearly they must co-operate and in most instances they do so. In County Tipperary, there are many signs warning of dangerous bridges ahead, particularly on bends in the road.
The Minister of State said that the €1 billion plus to be spent on rail safety by 2013 is perhaps not fully appreciated. On the other hand, the entire programme of improvements could not take place unless that investment were made. It represents the foundation of the progress being made.
I concur with the points both Senators have made. We would not be able to place such a heavy dependence on our railways unless we had the safety issue under control. As regards vehicles striking bridges, Senator Mansergh made the point well; damaged road bridges are a matter for the relevant local authority, while Iarnród Éireann is responsible for rail bridges.
I am introducing two offences because I want to make such bridge strikes a serious offence. A person driving a vehicle that strikes a bridge will be guilty of an offence if there was a road sign indicating the height of the restricted bridge. The second offence relates to a failure to comply with a requirement to notify immediately the occurrence of a bridge strike, for obvious reasons.
In or around this time last year, following a normal inspection of our road bridge network, it was brought to the Department's attention that an abnormal load had struck the Rathcoole bridge leaving it in a dangerous condition. I do not know how many days elapsed before that incident was picked up by the inspectors but there could have been a serious incident as a result.
Senator Wilson brought to my attention the fact that some of the old stone and granite bridges may not meet the height requirements for new heavy goods vehicles. A number of HGVs have struck such bridges and are able to drive off, but other such vehicles can get caught underneath.
In addition to the provisions of the Bill, my Department will also be undertaking other measures because there are better ways of preventing bridge strikes than relying solely on road traffic signs. Earlier, I referred to technical developments in this regard, including the use of the GPS and Galileo systems. Hopefully, such systems will be fitted to vehicles to act as preventative measures.
I ask the House to approve this amendment in order to permit the two offences I cited to be inserted in the legislation. In addition, I am giving an undertaking to examine the other matters to which the Senators referred.
I thank the Minister of State for his comments. Subsection (2) of the proposed new section states, "Where the height of a structure in a public place is indicated by means of a traffic sign... ". Surely, however, it should be compulsory to indicate the height of a railway bridge. It should not be at Iarnród Éireann's discretion whether to display such signs. The signs should be displayed well in advance of bridges.
The road traffic legislation currently being drafted will take adequate account of and will make provision for the point Senator Wilson has drawn to my attention.
Amendment No. 48 has already been discussed with amendment No. 47.
This amendment repeals section 55 of the Transport Act 2001, which extends the drink driving provisions of the Road Traffic Act to tram drivers. Senators will be aware of the extensive provisions in Parts 9 and 10 of the Bill, to which I alluded earlier, dealing with drug and alcohol testing of safety critical railway workers. These provisions will apply to tram drivers also. It would not be legally appropriate to have two separate laws applying to the same issue. It is appropriate, therefore, that section 55 be repealed.
No. 14 of 1993 |
Roads Act 1993 |
Section 15A(a) |
This is a straightforward amendment which requires the consent of the Minister for the construction of a bridge over a railway.
I thank the Acting Chairman and the Members of the Seanad for their co-operation on Committee Stage of the Railway Safety Bill 2001 today. I appreciate the debate and the sessions in which we teased out the issues outside this House. We have strengthened the Bill that originally came before the House. It is now in better, stronger shape.
I thank all involved, including the support staff, most important, the officials from my Department, who have supported all Members of the House and ensured that we flushed and teased out the relevant issues. I pay tribute to Maurice Treacy, Mairéad Broderick and Damien Clarke and thank them one and all.
In respect of Report Stage to which I look forward, could the House accommodate this debate after 11.30 tomorrow morning? I will discuss this with the Leader of the House.
My colleague, Senator Dooley, will probably speak at the conclusion of the debate tomorrow. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for the manner in which they conducted their business here on all Stages so far on the Railway Safety Bill. I thank my colleagues, Senators Paddy Burke, Mansergh and McDowell for their input into this debate on all Stages.
The Minister of State, Deputy Callely, is the most frequent ministerial attendee in the House this session. We will see him again tomorrow for the resumption of the debate on what has become commonly known as the "transport towards the show or club" Bill.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Tomorrow.