Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 2000 > Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport > Report on the meeting with IRMS, Iarnród Éireann, Dep Public Ent, Minister on Rail Safety

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Report of the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport

on Meeting with I.R.M.S., Iarnród Éireann, Department of Public Enterprise Officials

and

Minister for Public Enterprise, Mary O’Rourke T.D. on Rail Safety

September 2000

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Report of the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport

on Meeting with I.R.M.S., Iarnród Éireann, Department of Public Enterprise Officials

and

Minister for Public Enterprise, Mary O’Rourke T.D. on Rail Safety

September 2000

Contents

Introduction

The Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport was established by Order of Dáil Éireann of 13th November, 1997 and by Order of Seanad Éireann of 19th November, 1997. In addition, Standing Orders state that the following powers may be conferred on a Committee:

“(1) power to take oral and written evidence and to print and publish from time to time minutes of such evidence taken in public before the Select Committee together with such related documents as the Select Committee thinks fit;”.

This report of the Joint Committee on Rail Safety was agreed at its meeting on 15 June, 2000.

Mr. Seán Doherty, T.D.

Chairman

An Comhchoiste um Fhiontair Phoiblí agus Iompar

Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport

Déardaoin, 4 Bealtaine 2000.

Thursday, 4 May 2000.

The Joint Committee met at 10.04 a.m.

Members Present:

Deputy S. Doherty in the Chair

Submissions on Rail Safety.IRMS.

Chairman: The first group before us is the IRMS. Its representatives are Mr. Andrew Smith, managing director and Mr. Anthony D. Pickett, director. Is that correct?

Mr. Pickett: Correct.

Chairman: You are very welcome, gentlemen. The schedule for this meeting has been circulated to members and I propose to proceed with the item as scheduled. In conducting today’s business and having regard to our previous discussions on this issue, I ask members to have regard to the following:

(a)the committee will not form any view about the role of individuals or seek to criticise or impugn the good name of any individual,

(b)Members must have regard to the established and proper parliamentary practice that Members should not comment on, criticise and make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him identifiable as he is defenceless against the accusation under privilege, and

(c)witnesses other than the Minister appearing before the committee do not enjoy absolute privilege.

Will you make a short introductory presentation, following which there will be a question and answer session?

Mr. Pickett: We prepared some information in advance which was sent to you, several slides giving bullet points, highlights from the report. I was prepared to go through those and elaborate if you want but that was expected to take ten or 15 minutes. Alternatively, we can take that as read and I will take specific questions if you want to move along.

Chairman: Do members want a presentation?

Deputy Yates: Perhaps we could spend five minutes going through the main points of the IRMS submission.

Chairman: Will you take us through the thrust of your submission?

Mr. Pickett: Certainly. The report that was issued at the beginning of this year was on an audit that we carried out during October/December last year on Iarnród Éireann. The purpose of the audit was to review progress against the recommendations contained in our report which was issued the previous year, the report being a review of railway safety in Ireland. The purpose of this was to carry out an audit to see how progress was being made by the railway and by Government against those recommendations. It was divided up into key areas covering engineering systems; safety culture and occupational safety, which is the safety of the staff; the accident record of the railway; human resources and training; the management of contractors on the railway and third parties; a review of the adequacy of the safety of the infrastructure;the safety management systems which are the soft systems that the railway uses to control safety and lastly, a review of the roles, responsibilities and functions of the railway inspecting officer within the Department of Public Enterprise.

I have reported against each of those headings the key findings. The committee has a copy of the full report. I will deal with some of the issues which concern members, including the reporting of the unreasonable risks found on the railway. The risks which have been classified as unreasonable are not the same as intolerable risks. We did not find any intolerable risks on the railway, either in the previous study or this recent one. The unreasonable risks are those that pose an immediate risk to staff, passengers or public or fall far short of best practice and require urgent remedial action. We have reported against those. While we have said that not all of those risks have been fully resolved, all of them have been addressed to some extent by the railway. Some could not be resolved within the timeframe available, they will take many years to complete. What we are looking for is whether they have put in place controls or remedial actions to ensure the risks are controlled until repair or until the inadequacy is corrected. We found some more unreasonable risks in 1999 and those are reported in our recent study.

We found overall that good progress has been made on the risk assessment of some of the lines that we carried out. The work done in the 12 to 18 months since our study reduced risks on some of these lines by up to 50% so we are seeing good improvements in some areas. The committee has seen the report. Our overall conclusion is that good progress has been made by the railway in some areas. In other areas, progress is not as good as we would have expected, the conclusion being that the railway is safer than it was 12 or 18 months ago but it is still not as safe as it should be. Progress is being made towards that.

Deputy Yates: I welcome Mr. Pickett and Mr. Smith. Needless to say, I would like to focus on those matters which they are not happy about in terms of passenger safety and so on. The media highlighted the unreasonable risks which had not been dealt with, which were covered in the report published in early March of this year. It was put to me by Irish Rail that this was a little unfair as inspections were carried out but the consultants did not return to see how much had been done about them. In other words, from their point of view, this is almost an interim report of matters highlighted by the consultants who should have waited some time to produce another report, by which time, the 11 matters of concern would have been attended to. Is that a fair comment? Irish Rail, who will come before the committee later, believes this report should have had interim status. That is their defence. Does Mr. Pickett believe all these 44 issues should have been dealt with when they were inspected and there is no viable excuse?

I wish to focus on page 10 of this data which deals with the unreasonable risks. In the previous report in October 1998, 44 unreasonable risks were identified, eleven of which were not audited. Is Mr. Pickett saying these were ignored and nothing was done about them? Can he give us more detail of the issues involved and whether they would endanger passenger safety? A further new 11 unreasonable risks are itemised. I have been told that damage was done to the railway ballast in the laying of the fibre-optic cable by an independent contractor for Esat. Is Mr. Pickett happy with the supervision of the terms of the contract? It seems to me that it was bad enough that all these issues were identified in the original 1998 report, never mind the new series of problems because of lack of proper supervision or whatever. Has it been decided if these contractors will put this right or whether it will be left to the Exchequer to fund the repair of this ballast? I would like Mr. Pickett or Mr. Smith to elaborate on some other specific points in this green report.

Mr. Pickett: Perhaps I will answer the points already raised by the Deputy first. The Deputy mentioned the 11 unaudited items - this means they were not audited by us. The Deputy is right that the green report is an interim report. It was scheduled that six to 12 months after our original study that we would go back to see what progress was being made. The 11 unaudited items were not audited by our team. We went back to do an audit, which is very much a sampling process, and in the short time available we went to see three-quarters of the risks we had previously seen. We went back to each of those 33 to check on progress. We did not rely on the railway’s report. The 11 items are the ones we did not see. As to whether we should have expected all of those to be fully resolved, there is a variation on the type of incident. If it was a piece of infrastructure that was broken, it could be easily fixed. If a portion of railing was missing, a person could be sent to weld it the next day and the job was completed. We would expected those to have been completed by our study, and that has been done.

There have been other faults, such as a mechanical interlocking at a particular signal box, which has been rectified. However, it was typical of a generic problem railway wide. If there were 50 mechanical boxes, all of them would not have been fixed. We have seen that they have fixed the original problem we have identified. They are doing a survey of how big that problem is across the whole network. They have been unable to fix all of those during the six to 12 months since our last study but they have put in place remedial mitigation measures. They have locked loops and points and put in place special working procedures. Those will stay in place until the original fault is fully rectified. That is why we are saying four were resolved and 22 are in progress. They have put in place remedial or control measures to address those. A few others have been overtaken by other events - the track is being replaced or other procedures are going ahead so the original problem no longer exists.

On the 11 further unreasonable risks, some are in both categories. We have specific items such as the glazing at Bray Station which was fixed within a short period. Regarding other items which were symptomatic of generic faults, the original one was usually fixed and they are looking at the scale of the problem throughout the network which will be resolved over a longer period. However, controls have been put in place. If we did a further audit in 12 months we would expect to see all of these fully resolved.

Mr. Smith: One of the problems we were faced with was putting in place the IE railway safety programme, which is basically its programme for setting good the railway - they said on many occasions they would completely fix the particular unreasonable risk that we had identified originally. With the benefit of hindsight, that was far too ambitious in a number of cases, as Mr. Pickett pointed out, where the issue we identified was symptomatic of a general problem across the railway which could not be fixed inside a year - it was literally impossible. To some extent, IE has been a hostage to fortune in setting overly ambitious targets in their safety programme, which is what we were auditing against. To reiterate what Mr. Pickett said, where faults could have been fixed immediately, that has been done. With generic faults, we had to recognise that could not be done and the programme was too ambitious. In other areas we found issues which they are now working on.

Chairman: You say you have reduced risk by 50%. Where risk has not been introduced, what is the risk in percentage terms?

Mr. Pickett: Those were calculated in our previous report. To simplify it, I took the numerical values of risk to passengers on each of the lines and on the lines we reviewed for improvements made, we calculated the risk improvement.

If need be, we could calculate and give the Deputy those values. We chose to show it as a percentage improvement rather than quoting, for example, the one in 4,000 or the one in 57,000.

The last item is the Esat cable. We reviewed this during our audits. What we said and what is evident is that there is an appropriate standard written for how this work should be done. The work was not done according to that standard, but we are not in a position to say who is responsible for why it was not done according to the standard, whether it was the railway’s control or whether it was the contractors used. It is the subject of a contractual agreement between IE and Esat and that requires to be resolved.

Mr. Smith: That is a question the Deputy must direct to IE itself.

Mr. Pickett: We would say it has caused some damage in the medium-term.

Deputy Yates: I wish to go through some of the points the witnesses made. They said funding allocated to signalling and telecommunications does not allow for some essential signalling renewals or the increased expenditure associated with the delays to the implementation of the mini CTC system. Where on the overall network has there not been adequate investment or where has the shortfall in investment in signalling and telecommunications occurred? The witnesses said that not enough money was invested in that. What has lost out and on what should we focus in terms of investment?

When I asked about the 44 unreasonable risks, Mr. Pickett had an answer for each of them along the lines that they had been dealt with. The report states that it is also noted that some of the previously identified unreasonable risks reported within the programme were not fully actioned. Will Mr. Pickett specify those which he was not satisfied were fully actioned? It goes on to say that very few of the previously reported unreasonable risks can be unambiguously reported as fully resolved. That suggests to me that the witnesses were not entirely happy. What I get from them this morning is that they are not too unhappy. Perhaps they could develop on their unhappiness.

Other items I came across were the management of safety and the human resource issue, which came across very strongly in the report. It stated that, with one exception, five year plans were not available, that project managers were not appointed and that the systems were not put in place. Will the witnesses tell us what would be required in terms of the management of the safety issue. I am not talking about the roll-out of the investment on the permanent way or the signalling system. If they were managing Iarnród Éireann, would they place a single project manager in charge of doing all this work or would they place a variety of programme managers? What exactly would they do in that regard? Will they also comment on the administrative deficiencies in the safety element?

Mr. Pickett: On the first item of the mini CTC, I would need to refer to our signalling engineer for the exact locations. The safety investment programme put together and agreed by the task force at the beginning of last year was done very much on the basis of our report. Since that time, there have been delays to the mini CTC project for various reasons, which meant that items of infrastructure which were supposed to have been replaced by now have not been and they are still in existence. That is what we are saying now, that the investment programme they have got will need to be increased to allow for these delays. If needs be, we can give the Deputy the locations where this is being effective.

Deputy Yates: The report states that some essential signalling renewals will be more important than the mini CTC systems.

Mr. Pickett: That is right.

Deputy Yates: Could Mr. Pickett name a station or route where he is concerned about this?

Mr. Pickett: I could find the details. The generic problem was the mechanical and signalling inter-lockings where, when they have done their own surveys, the problems were worse than we had identified in the amount of money that would be needed to rectify this in the timescale.

Deputy Yates: Could Mr. Pickett specify a figure for the shortfall? Would it a few million pounds?

Mr. Smith: It would be a bit more than that. I would imagine it would be some tens of millions.

Deputy Yates: Would it be a fair comment to say it would be in excess of £20 million?

Mr. Smith: I guess it would be, but we would have to go back to our signalling engineer and check out those figures. I imagine it would be of that order.

Mr. Pickett: The other one was with regard to the unreasonable risks. Some items, such as the procurement of a new access platform for the overhead line, have not been done and have not been at the time of this debate.

Deputy Yates: Where was this?

Mr. Pickett: This is on the DART system where there are electrified overhead lines. That has not been done and they had not procured the equipment or the plant. I am not sure of the current position so it was reported as not resolved.

Deputy Yates: Was this the overhead cables?

Mr. Pickett: Yes, it is an access platform for the staff to stand and work on when they do maintenance to the overhead line. Before we went along, they were using existing converted wagons for doing this work, which had been banned in the UK as being dangerous. In the interim, before they had purchased this plant, what they had done, as an example, is that they had stopped this work in practice until the plant had been procured. That was reported as not completed, but they had done something in the meantime to assess this.

The issue we have raised about the fact that items reported as completed had not been done was, as Mr. Smith mentioned, according to their safety programme, they have been very ambitious in intending to clear all these items by the end of last year. That was very ambitious and they could not have done that. That was our starting point. We had the expectation according to their report that these had been completed. We have seen that they have not been rectified, but what we are finding out is that they are putting in place remedial or temporary measures to control the risk in the interim. There are some we thought should have been fixed easily and have taken more time for whatever reason, such as wipers on the 201 locomotive. They also had some proposals from General Motors which were not acceptable.

Chairman: The wipers on what?

Mr. Pickett: The wipers on the 201 locomotives were failing and were unreliable and this could have obscured the driver’s view if it had occurred with the wiper in front of him. They have proposals from the manufacturer of the locomotive-----

Deputy Yates: Are these the windscreen wipers?

Mr. Pickett: Yes.

Chairman: He could not see where he was going, in other words.

Mr. Pickett: The manufacturer had three attempts to do this and had been unsuccessful. In the end, the railway have gone ahead and done it themselves. We believe from talking to them recently that this is now being done. So there are things we thought should have been done and had not, but they had in all cases put in a remedial measure to control it.

Chairman: That is a situation that is occurring day to day which management of the plant should cater for, should it not?

Mr. Pickett: An interim measure was that they were taking the wipers from the opposite side where the driver is not sitting and which they are not looking out of and swapping them over to the driver’s position so that the driver always had an operational windscreen wiper, but that was a temporary fix measure.

Chairman: Short of putting a man outside, it could not sound more ridiculous.

Mr. Pickett: The next item was about the management of safety and co-ordination. We had strongly recommended in our report that they should put in place or have a single project manager tasked with implementing this work. There was no senior manager within the railway who had nothing to do. They were all very busy already. On top of this, when they were managing the safety work, it would have to fit on top of their existing workload. We recommended they appointed a single manager.

Deputy Yates: And they ignored that.

Mr. Pickett: The advantage of that was, not only was it the person’s sole task, he could co-ordinate all the practices going on. What they did was they put in place three safety review groups in each of the divisions. They had a committee which sat and it was chaired by the manager of safety who sat on all three and acted in a co-ordinating role, but he was already very busy. We find that, when we are doing the audit, there is good practice going on in particular locations and divisions. Some of the signalling division work is very good, but that is not being spread as good practice around the rest of the railway. These are the examples of where they are doing good things in certain areas. If one person was championing this in the railway, he could point to what they are doing in the signalling section as a good example and say it should be used in the standards or civil section or somewhere else. We would still recommend that that work should be put to a single person because of the amount of work and the co-ordination. Certain expertise is also required in terms of some of the risk management and risk modelling.

Deputy Yates: Would there be some merit in someone from Mr. Pickett’s office working on an ongoing semi-permanent basis for the period of this rail safety plan? Mr. Pickett conducts spot checks once a year, but some of these matters are very important, so perhaps a liaison person should be assigned.

Mr. Smith: It would be difficult for us to comment on that. We recognise there needs to be somebody in overall charge of the process. One of the major problems we found is that so much needs to be done on the railway. The funding is now forthcoming but one cannot do everything at once. There is a huge amount to do. There is already a huge amount to do in maintaining the railway in its current state, let alone all the investment that is going on.

The funding is forthcoming but one cannot do everything at once and there is a huge amount to do. There is already a huge amount to do to maintain the railway in its current state, let alone the investment that is going on. There needs to be a significant emphasis on getting in senior managers who can manage the amount of work now needed.

Deputy Yates: My previous questions have related to Irish Rail and now I want to ask about the Department. The Minister and this committee have favoured setting up an independent rail safety inspectorate and authority which would reassure the public. At the moment Irish Rail is the rail safety authority and there is an inherent conflict in that situation. Has Mr. Smith seen the Department or the Minister’s proposals? He referred to better liaison with the HSAI and giving this matter to the HSAI was one possibility as an interim measure. Given Mr. Smith’s international experience, what is the optimum situation in a given country regarding rail safety? Coming from the UK he might outline its approach to reassure people. In all circumstances Irish Rail will trot in here to tell us or the public that their trains are absolutely safe and that there is nothing to worry about as there have been no fatalities since God knows when. That is fine, but the public would be even more reassured if an independent quango was saying this. Can Mr. Smith set out what would be the best final outcome in terms of overseeing this long after the consultant group has finished?

Mr. Smith: The Deputy is absolutely right. The last thing you want is a conflict of interest within the operating organisation. That organisation must be responsible for safety ultimately - it is running the railway and must carry the ultimate responsibility - but there needs to be an independent reviewer role for an inspectorate outside the railways. At the moment there is a railway inspectorate within the Department of Public Enterprise, and one of the things we recommended in our first report and through into our second is-----

Deputy Stagg: But you do not say whether that is effective.

Mr. Smith: I was just coming to that point. Certainly in our first audit it was very difficult for the inspectorate to be effective because effectively it was one person inspecting the entire Irish railway network, which was clearly inadequate. That was what we said.

Since that time there has been an increase in the staffing of the inspectorate, but it is still some distance off having the complement necessary to effectively review the safety of the whole system. This is why we are currently being brought in every year - to help that process. I see a need for substantial strengthening of that inspectorate for the necessary level of public assurance. It may even be that additional skills will be needed in certain areas as well as additional resources. In tandem with that, there is a need for further legislation to give the inspectorate the necessary powers of enforcement and to allow the inspectorate to have the ability to call upon the necessary documentation from whoever is operating the railways to provide an assurance that what is being designed, developed, built and operated is sufficiently safe for public acceptance. The Department is already thinking about such legislation.

There is railway safety case legislation in the UK which requires operators to provide a documented proof of safety before they are allowed to operate trains. That would be for new and existing projects.

Deputy Stagg: Was that effective?

Mr. Smith: It has proved very effective there and in other industries around the world.

Deputy Stagg: Was there not some change recently after a major crash in England?

Mr. Smith: Obviously the whole process of railway safety legislation in the UK is under review following Southall and Ladbroke Grove.

Deputy Stagg: So it was not effective.

Mr. Smith: I do not think one can say that.

Deputy Stagg: Why are they changing the legislation then?

Mr. Smith: They are not changing the legislation. They are reviewing the legislation. The emphasis over the last 20 years has moved from one where the inspector is expected to review everything in detail to standing back and allowing the operator, who has the ultimate responsibility, to make the case they are operating safely, with the inspector reviewing and that information being passed through to them, rather than prescriptively passing down from the inspector what should be done. Then if there is a crash the inspector is responsible because after all he or she told the operator how to operate the train system. It is a change to the operator taking responsibility because it is operating the system. A goal-setting framework where the operator is expected to tell the regulator and therefore the public how it has set about setting out its system for safe operation of the railway. That has now become an accepted model virtually worldwide in the railway industry and has proven to be very effective.

Senator O’Dowd: Mr. Smith made some very critical comments regarding the railway inspecting officer and the organisation within the Department, as there are now two railway inspecting officers and half a staff member to service the work they do, which is disgraceful. Obviously they do not have the resources to do the work.

The relationship between Iarnród Éireann and the inspecting officer was also referred to by Mr. Smith. The report states that some retraction of information flows from Iarnród Éireann is apparent, arising from the Freedom of Information Act, by which information in Government hands may be scrutinised by the public. Iarnród Éireann is moving towards providing railway inspectors only with that it is obliged to do rather than freely sharing personal and internal information as hitherto.

Basically, how bad a situation is it?

Mr. Pickett: It is not ideal. The situation was working reasonably well before but on a personal basis. Now we are seeing that it has retracted and is working more towards the letter of the law. The railway inspector does not have legislation to back him up so that he can insist on documentation being provided to him.

Senator O’Dowd: So you are saying that Iarnród Éireann is moving towards providing the inspectorate only with what it must do. Do you have evidence that it is not supplying critical information or information the railway inspector should nor needs to get? I refer to the relationship between Iarnród Éireann and the inspecting officer.

Mr. Pickett: One could ask the Minister, but we have evidence he has asked for information of accident and inquiry reports or even fairly straightforward clarification of technical issues which he has not received or which has taken many weeks before being received.

Senator O’Dowd: So the railway inspecting officer is not getting the information from Iarnród Éireann and I thank the delegation for bringing this to our attention. The safety of our railways, as Deputy Yates said, is totally dependent on independent audit and inspection. The fact that the railway inspectors, weak in terms of numbers and totally unsupported in administration, are not getting information they need to make sure railways are safe and we must deal with that. Later today we will have to assess this critically and insist on a total change in this relationship.

Chairman: On that point, can we be satisfied the delegation got the fullest information voluntarily?

Mr. Pickett: Yes, from both the Government, the Department and the railway. There was nothing we asked for that was refused.

Chairman: No concerns, worries or fears?

Mr. Smith: To be fair, it was very helpful.

Chairman: It is important to have that on the Record.

Senator O’Dowd: Absolutely. The terms of the regulator of the railways needs to be totally and radically changed.

Mr. Smith: Additional legislation needs to be implemented to provide the inspector with the necessary tools he needs, without a doubt.

Mr. Pickett: Not only are they doing this in light of the programme of safety improvement, there is also the development work and other projects planned in Ireland.

Senator O’Dowd: Right. The other issue is the matter of safety management systems which is mentioned in the report; page 79 acknowledges very significant changes in the safety culture but goes on to say that there are several major areas where the safety initiative could be undermined at ground level.

These are described. There is also reference to industrial relations between Iarnród Éireann and its employees and that there was evidence in some areas of activity that the poor management-employee relationship was becoming a hindrance to the successful involvement of staff necessary to create the impetus for the safety implementation programme. It is also pointed out that if actions necessary to ensure the safety of the public, passengers or staff are being inhibited by negotiating safety issues on trade union platforms, this is unacceptable and management and those frustrating their actions could be held responsible should an accident occur through lack of safety measures delayed in this way. How critical is this situation?

Mr. Smith: We believe it to be very critical. For example, some months ago CIE bought a new tamping machine which is designed to make the track flat and minimise the chance of a derailment. That machine has yet to be introduced because of an industrial relations dispute. It was bought new but is still sitting in the depot and has never been used. That is one example of the kind of problems introduced because of industrial relations problems.

Mr. Pickett: Another example is the use of radios in shunting which are designed specifically to improve the safety of those carrying out the shunting. These radios have not been introduced.

Deputy Stagg: What are they used for?

Mr. Pickett: During shunting operations people are in and around trains directing their actions. Radios have been bought so these people can be away from the track when they are carrying out the directing yet they have not introduced the radios. They also have speed guns which allow one to monitor the speed of trains to ensure that drivers are complying with speed restrictions. A train that goes too quickly on a poor track could be derailed and there has been one such incident. These issues are not being resolved but are caught up in the industrial relations situation.

There are also issues of staff attending training programmes, and even to fill in attendance forms to certify they have been on the training programme, let alone carrying out any competency assessment at the end of it. These things are not being done.

Chairman: Has Iarnród Éireann been in the doldrums so long it is unable to handle progress, even when it has money for it? It is like the wipers on trains. Is a culture in existence within the company that people are not able to readjust?

Mr. Pickett: They are readjusting. There was a long period when the resources were not available. Many people we spoke to said that, for the first time, they are now given money when they ask for it. They are surprised the money is available to carry out the work. There is a need to build a momentum.

Mr. Smith: It is like an oil tanker which one cannot turn around in ten minutes. One cannot just hand over several million pounds to Irish Rail and expect everything to be fixed inside six months. Things are not like that.

Chairman: Surely the wipers could be fixed.

Mr. Smith: We are looking for Iarnród Éireann to have a process whereby it could prioritise tasks - does it fix the wipers, the track or the signalling cable first, and so on.

Mr. Pickett: If it was just a case of fixing wiper motors and there was nothing else to do then that would be a valid point. However, because it has so much to do, so little resources and no additional resources to implement all the things which need implementing-----

Chairman: It is a serious and fundamental matter if a driver cannot see. You thought this worthy enough to make reference to it.

Senator O’Dowd: As regards the resolution of that difficulty, the witnesses are saying that the unions and CIE, or Iarnród Éireann, must take those safety issues out of the industrial relations field.

Mr. Smith: Absolutely.

Senator O’Dowd: So, as a committee, we have to insist this happens. So long as safety is not a priority----

Mr. Smith: So it does not become a bargaining tool.

Deputy Stagg: How might this issue be taken out of the industrial relations area?

Mr. Smith: It is a little difficult for us-----

Deputy Stagg: It is a little difficult for everyone else as well. To say we must take it out of the industrial relations area is nonsense. One cannot just do that. It might be desirable but it is not just a case of saying we have to do it. We are not the people who will do so. The unions and management will have to agree to it.

Mr. Smith: Correct, and those two parties have to come to an agreement rather than outside parties mandating something. What must be brought to bear is the necessary political will to make that happen. If that means changes to employment conditions and so on, then that is what has to happen.

Senator O’Dowd: The report is suggesting that these issues cannot be shirked and that if ensuring safety requires management enforcing its decisions or facing justified criticism and legal liability should an accident occur. This is a safety critical area.

Mr. Smith: Very much so.

Senator O’Dowd: This cannot be left on the long finger. Reference was made to the safety culture. Much of what was said in the original report is still coming up, notwithstanding the significant investment. The report talks about staff still working very hard to keep things going and in doing so taking risks with safety that may lead to accidents. It also suggests that the number of locations where these risks occur has reduced but is still significant.

The report also highlights a situation in Athenry where a class one rail defect required mandatory removal within 24 hours but was still running without any additional control six days after discovery. How can this problem be solved? This is a safety critical issue.

Mr. Pickett: It is about a culture whereby people responsible for making these decisions understand the risks so they can look at a situation and decide if the risk is acceptable or if it can be left for that time period. They had a standard which stated it must be removed within 24 hours but they did not do so. They made other decisions to support the joint and let it run.

Senator O’Dowd: But they knew it was there. Was that because there was an absence of rail to replace it?

Mr. Pickett: We believe there was a shortage of the type of rail needed to replace it immediately but they need to be able to understand the risks and make an informed decision.

Mr. Smith: To be fair it was not that they just left it. They undertook immediate remedial action given they could not replace it and put in a speed restriction.

Senator O’Dowd: But it was not best practice.

Mr. Smith: It was not in line with their own procedure and that is the problem. We would not necessarily criticise what they did. However, when we are auditing against what they should have done they did not follow their procedure.

Senator O’Dowd: It seems that since the first report there are still major structural problems within the organisation which lead me to remain concerned about the safety culture throughout CIE, or Iarnród Éireann.

Mr. Smith: To be fair there have been significant improvements over the last year. However, the sea change required to get to a railway that is safe in European terms is going to require a further sea change and further resources.

Senator O’Dowd: That is echoed on page 32 which highlights that site inspections continue to identify examples of defects which would be quite unacceptable in the rest of Europe. In terms of European standards, on an index of one to ten, where would Iarnród Éireann rank?

Mr. Smith: It would be in the lower quartile in terms of the railway infrastructure. In terms of the ethos of the company it is very committed to safety but it needs additional help in terms of more resources to implement what it now knows is a very sub-standard infrastructure.

Senator O’Dowd: What sort of country would we rank with?

Mr. Smith: I am talking about EU countries. If one compares the equipment standard and infrastructure adequacy of a typical European railway I would say the Irish infrastructure is currently in the lower quartile of EU countries.

Senator O’Dowd: How do we rank in terms of safety culture?

Mr. Smith: In terms of commitment and so on, Iarnród Éireann has the right attributes. People at the very highest level of Iarnród Éireann are committed to safety. It is a case of getting that percolated down.

Senator O’Dowd: It is the culture.

Mr. Smith: That will not happen overnight. Typically it would take a large organisation such as Iarnród Éireann two, three or four years to get that percolated down to ground level. It takes a long time.

Chairman: What additional financial resources are you taking about?

Mr. Smith: I am talking about more management resources - people.

Chairman: It is important to distinguish that it is not a problem of finances.

Mr. Smith: No.

Chairman: It is a mindset.

Mr. Pickett: It is the mindset and number of staff that managers need at senior level, particularly in some technical areas like signalling and telecoms.

Chairman: How can that be improved?

Mr. Pickett: The problem is that the economy is very strong and Irish Rail is finding it very difficult to recruit the qualified staff it needs in many of these areas of signalling and telecoms.

Chairman: The staff are good but they have a difficulty. How do we get them over the difficulty? How can they be helped? In effect, that is what you are saying. This is a serious issue. We are talking about the age of staff.

We are talking about long time employees who rendered good service in difficult times. Instead of labelling them here today, we want to ensure we understand their problem. Is it a problem that can be corrected? It is more difficult to make changes at certain stages in one’s life than at others.

Mr. Smith: We think the existing IE managers are very committed and able people. It is just that there are only 24 hours in a day and they have too much to do. A dedicated project manager to oversee the implementation of the programme would lift the burden very significantly. We might be looking for only one person, to start with. Some technical areas, such as signalling and telecoms, are very short of the required resources. Unfortunately, there is a worldwide shortage of that kind of resource. It is potentially a matter of IE looking at its pay grading scales to try to compete with the world’s railways in getting these people on board.

Mr. Pickett: We did not receive any evidence of anyone who was resistant to this. There were people who admitted they did not understand the techniques, but nobody said they would not accept them, were resistant to it or refused to change. There were some for whom it would take time, and we are seeing improvements over the past 12 to 18 months.

Senator O’Dowd: You are talking about permanent inspectors. Examination of track patrolling records show that certain patrol gangers continue to never file a weekly report. The reason certain critical safety staff never compile such a report requires careful review. That is a big issue which must be faced head on.

Mr. Pickett: Yes, that is what I am saying about the safety culture issue. It is a big thing to get staff who have never looked at something to look at it critically. It is not possible to just tell them to do so. People are not like robots - they just carry on the customary practices they have always been used to. It takes time and very significant management effort to get a sea change in the culture.

Deputy Sargent: I welcome Mr. Smith and Mr. Pickett. From what we have been discussing here, it sounds as if the independent regulation of safety is more critical than ever. It is also a matter of resources and money, if we are talking about the need to pay people sufficiently to attract them to work for the company.

I want to focus on the railway inspector’s office. You have said, and it has also been stated in reply to parliamentary questions, that the railway inspector’s office does not have a sufficiently wide remit to deal with safety. There is a problem there. The Minister does not regulate safety, it is a matter for Iarnród Éireann. Essentially, it comes down to Iarnród Éireann being a self-regulator. What progress have we made away from that? There is all sorts of talk about independent regulation. You talk about the need for a new law to help Iarnród Éireann regulate safety. What do you see that new law doing? Or are you talking about an interim piece of legislation prior to an independent railway inspectorate?

Mr. Pickett: The resources of the railway inspectorate have been increased. There are now three rather than one, which is obviously a big improvement. It is currently, on the basis of recommendations we made in our report, reviewing European and worldwide best practice on regulation, whether the safety case is the best way forward or whether another way would be better. It seems it will adopt a safety case type regime, whether or not the railway is responsible for safety, whereby it would submit documents to the inspectorate to demonstrate it believes the railway is safe, why it is safe and that it has carried out the necessary risk assessments. The inspectorate’s job is to then review those. It is looking at the best ways. The UK system is well established. However, there are problems with it - it tends to be very bureaucratic - and I certainly would not recommend its adoption per se. The system here should be appropriate for the Irish railway.

Deputy Sargent: It sounds to me that it has to be totally separate and independent. There is a risk that all the other responsibilities will eat into the workload of the inspectorate.

Mr. Pickett: The responsibility for managing safety must not be taken away from the railway.

Deputy Sargent: Absolutely, but it must be told in no uncertain terms what is needed.

Mr. Pickett: If there is legislation, the regulator will have to provide guidance to the railways on what he wants and what standards and targets they should achieve.

Deputy Sargent: Iarnród Éireann will tell us later today - we have a script here - that you, presumably, have said there is a danger of Iarnród Éireann trying to achieve too much too quickly. There is obviously an urgency about this matter. Achieving too much too quickly sounds as if it needs to tame its urgency, somewhat. Will you say what you mean by that, so it is not seen as an excuse not to be urgent?

Mr. Pickett: It needs to be tamed and directed, in terms of the volume of work it is doing. It had a target of producing ten company standards, seven of which it had already done when we saw it. Below the company standards, there were 40 departmental ones, 18 of which are within the signalling department. It had already done six of those. That is a huge amount of work.

An awful lot of paperwork is coming out of the department for all its staff to look at, review and understand. We would like them to direct that more and to do it in depth rather than in breadth, so that people have time to read and understand the documents, in terms of what they mean for them and what they have to do, before another three fall on their desks. In some areas, they did not have time to do that. They would take a company standard and turn it into a departmental standard by taking off “company” and putting in the “department”, rather than developing it into something appropriate for their department.

Deputy Sargent: I have a few specific questions, one of which relates to safety and concerns access to stations and platforms for people with disabilities. I imagine the expense of building lift mechanisms, bridges, underpasses and so on has prevented considerable progress in this area. Quite a number of stations are still inaccessible to people with disabilities. It has been suggested that a type of swing bridge between platforms, for example, might serve the needs of people in wheelchairs. Are there any examples in other countries that would say this is good, bad, inadvisable or advisable? The operation of such a system would, obviously, require certain knowledge that a train will not come. Is that recommended? Can you give an opinion on it before we go any further with it? The wheelchair association wants access.

Mr. Smith: I would think that is a phenomenally expensive way of providing access. As the Deputy pointed out, it would have to interface with the signalling system, which would require the development of the software to a certain level applicable to a safety critical standard. It is relatively easy to build a lift as it does not have to interface with the railway systems. It would seem far more cost effective to build lifts, ramps, bridges and so on rather than a swing bridge mechanism. I have never seen it done before.

Deputy Sargent: It would be expensive because of the interface with signalling.

Mr. Smith: Correct.

Mr. Pickett: It would have to be done safely because one could not risk having an accident with a train.

Deputy Sargent: Iarnród Éireann management has often said to me in reply to questions about overcrowding - I find this hard to accept but it is worth repeating - that it, at times, regards an overcrowded train as safer than an undercrowded one, because of some sort of cushioning effect that the unfortunate victims might provide if there was an accident. I do not want to draw any comparisons with Hillsborough, but it sounds to me that overcrowding can, at times, cause its own casualties. Are there international limits on overcrowding or is packing people in regarded as a safe practice?

Mr. Pickett: There is some evidence that the casualty levels go up if there are more people on a train in an accident. However, there is also some evidence to show it comes down because people are not free to be thrown around the car and that packing people together reduces casualties. However, one would not adopt that as an operating practice to reduce risk by-----

Chairman: It is a cold comfort.

Deputy Sargent: It is interesting to hear a more-----

Mr. Pickett: There is some evidence to show that packing people into trains may reduce casualties but it is not a deliberate effect.

Deputy Sargent: It is not recommended.

Senator O’Dowd: With regard to the accident at Knockcroghery I think if people had been standing in the aisles more people would have been injured than in the inspector’s report.

Mr. Pickett: Unfortunately it is conflicting. There is no definitive evidence which suggests that over-crowding would lead to more injuries. In some cases it definitely would lead to more injuries and in some cases it would not. Obviously on a normal day to day basis from a passenger comfort point of view we do not want over-crowding. It is undesirable. To reduce over-crowding there is a need to increase the train service. To increase the train service means there are more trains on the network and the distance between trains is reduced and, therefore, there is an increased possibility that they may collide with each other. It is a complex issue. Clearly any railway, particularly a metro type railway, does not want to have excessive over-crowding even at peak hours where that can be avoided.

Mr. Smith: There is no comfort.

Deputy Sargent: People cannot be in an environment which is over-crowded.

Mr. Smith: Exactly. And people will not use the railways in today’s circumstances if they can use alternative means. It is not necessarily a safety dimension, there is a passenger comfort, economic commercial side too which is probably more important in many ways than the safety issue.

Deputy Sargent: Have you seen any progress on the policy in relation to drug and alcohol use?

Mr. Pickett: As far as we know there were two issues: the routine random testing, which is more difficult to implement, and the testing following an accident which is more acceptable, but we have not seen any progress on either of those issues yet.

Deputy Sargent: Have you any type of policy or guidelines in mind as to whether that policy would make it unacceptable for people to be intoxicated while on the train?

Mr. Pickett: Irrespective of any testing policy it should not be condoned that people go to work in an office, or driving a train in a state where they are not capable.

Deputy Stagg: We are talking about status.

Mr. Pickett: Passengers themselves use the railway. When they are having a drink they do not take the car but the railway should be friendly to passengers who have had a drink.

Deputy Stagg: And bets?

Deputy Sargent: On the over-speeding policy, you mentioned that speed guns were not being used. Do you mean there is a need for speed guns?

Mr. Pickett: Yes. Again there is a policy where one does not condone over-speeding. The driver should comply with the speed restrictions irrespective of whether somebody is hiding behind a tree with a gun. That is a back-up to these things, the same as the police on the roads.

Deputy Sargent: Would punctual operation of the train help cut down on the temptation to over-speed?

Mr. Smith: There should not be a culture in any railway organisation where over-speeding is not condoned. It is a very serious matter. We cannot understand why there would be a problem with countenancing the use of speed guns to enforce this policy. It is a very important part of railway safety.

Deputy Sargent: You said £100,000 was required for Government regulation. Is this to pay for extra inspectors? What is the £100,000 for?

Mr. Pickett: If it was for staffing we would not be in a position to estimate the costs required to put legislation through.

Deputy Sargent: This is for legislation-----

Mr. Pickett: No, we were not in a position to estimate the costs in Ireland to enact legislation.

Deputy Sargent: This would be a small number of people I presume if we are talking about £100,000.

Mr. Pickett: A couple of people.

Deputy Sargent: This is an interim arrangement until we get an independent inspector. Is that what you have in mind?

Mr. Smith: It may well be that you will need to look again, once you have formulated legislation and decided upon the ultimate arrangements for the rail inspecting organisation, at the staffing level. So far as we were concerned that is the staffing level for the stage you are at, as an interim measure.

Deputy Sargent: Interim. Right. Thank you.

Chairman: On a point of clarification and information, Iarnród Éireann will tell us today that its record in rail safety is among the best in Europe. Lest there be any misunderstanding in relation to what you said, where do we rate on a scale of 1 : 10 on this issue?

Mr. Smith: That is based on the state of the infrastructure because it has little or no investment over the last 30 years.

Chairman: Are you in conflict with Iarnród Éireann?

Mr. Smith: Not at all.

Chairman: Iarnród Éireann says that in the absence of accidents, fortuitously or otherwise, its record of safety is among the best in Europe. In other words, we are lucky.

Mr. Pickett: You are reliant on good staff, drivers, signals men etc. Your trains have been slowed down to make them safe.

Chairman: So there is no dispute about the fact that while the infrastructure is fundamentally weak our record on safety is among the best in Europe because we have responded in respect of staffing etc.

Senator O’Dowd: The safety culture.

Chairman: Exactly. Some people might take from that record that we have one of the best services in Europe? They do not necessarily mean the same thing.

Deputy Stagg: I welcome Mr. Pickett and Mr. Smith and thank them for their report and the assistance they are giving us. I am sure they are both aware that Iarnród Éireann has been operating on a shoestring since the foundation of the State and it was almost enemy number one so far as financing at national level was concerned. It just would not be given money. Therefore it had to try to hold the railway system together literally on shoestring. The parties of which the Chairman and Deputy Yates are members - the two main parties who control the money and who get 80% of the vote - are directly responsible for not giving the money to CIE. I am sure Mr. Pickett and Mr. Smith do not wish to comment on that. They will not bother to comment on it either.

Deputy Yates: In deference to all the successes----

Deputy Stagg: I welcome them as converts to the idea of a good, efficient, well-funded public transport system. The reason they are new converts to it is that their old plan for private transport - the motor car - has failed in Dublin City, in particular, and in Cork, Limerick and Galway. The village in which I live is clogged up with cars. We cannot get space on the trains or on the buses for those wishing to use them. We are desperately trying to buy new buses and trying to fit more trains on to tracks that were neglected for 50 years, 90 years in some cases. At the last session here, Iarnród Éireann confirmed to me that the signalling system on the Maynooth line, which is one of the busiest lines in the country, is 90 years old and is made of brass. It has some archaic arrangement with Eircom to maintain it on the basis that Eircom staff get free tickets when travelling to work. I am sure that is a bad arrangement.

Chairman: I am not sure.

Deputy Stagg: I am sure it is a bad arrangement. I understand the signalling system is controlled or maintained by Eircom, the payment for which is that its staff get free travel to work. Can you comment on that and also on whether it would be desirable to have a somewhat more dedicated and clearly specified contract for the maintenance of signalling? I understand that signalling in that area has broken down to some degree.

Chairman: That issue was dealt with at another committee. The Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners said there was a benefit-in-kind.

Deputy Stagg: The Chairman has knocked me of my track.

Deputy Sargent: The Deputy is derailed already.

Deputy Stagg: Not quite, I will get back on track shortly.

Mr. Smith: On the signalling issue, the ETS electronic token system is an exchange between trains on single track systems.

Deputy Stagg: Does that exist anywhere else in Europe?

Mr. Smith: Token working does exist on very lightly used lines. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with a telecommunications company maintaining telecommunications infrastructure which-----

Deputy Stagg: I know the point I was going to make. I will make it before you continue. That system has broken down and they are now using mobile phones to replace these tokens. Do you consider that safe?

Mr. Smith: Again it would depend on the integrity of the communications system. The mobile phones are not good.

I hazard a guess that was for only a temporary situation. One cannot consider a mobile phone as a safety critical system.

Deputy Stagg: When your group checked this, did it find the situation I described?

Mr. Pickett: We did not find them broken, we found some of them in a poor state of repair and some held together by elastic bands. We recommend that maintenance should be carried out on those. Given that one cannot buy new spares, when one replaces these old systems with new systems, one cascades down the old ones and uses them elsewhere.

Deputy Stagg: Did your group become aware that they hire contractors to cut back trees and that those contractors regularly cut the wires?

Mr. Pickett: I would not be surprised.

Deputy Stagg: Did your group find any evidence of that?

Mr. Pickett: They do that and they also take down some of the pole routes, so I imagine they do that. One of our concerns was that the telecom companies do not necessarily understand the safety critical nature of the infrastructure they maintain. Some of it is within the railway and some of it is within their control.

Deputy Stagg: It would be desirable, therefore, to have a contractor or a dedicated crew, who fully understands the whole system, working on this rather than this loose system they have with Eircom?

Mr. Pickett: They have a legal contract with Eircom.

Deputy Stagg: Did your group establish how far back that goes?

Mr. Pickett: It goes back some time.

Deputy Stagg: I understand it dates back to the foundation of the State.

Mr. Pickett: There are options. One can have dedicated contractors or one’s own staff and both of them can be managed safely.

Deputy Stagg: We have neither here. There is only a loose connection between the two and not a clearly defined contract with Eircom.

Mr. Smith: Under those circumstances one needs a clearly defined contract. I would not like to comment on the nature of the contract because I have not seen it. The Deputy is correct, under these circumstances, the contractual responsibilities must be------

Mr. Stagg: If your group reviews this area, it might further consider this aspect. There is no software involved in much of what I am talking about; it is very much hardware that is involved.

With due respect to the group, I regard the issue of the wipers that was highlighted here as a tabloid story. It could have been dealt with. Highlighting it will make a joke of this important meeting and report. I am not saying that trains are suitably safe without wipers that work, but I was surprised to learn it was a main feature of a decision when I arrived at this meeting.

Other private contractors, who work for other telecom companies, lay cables along railway lines. The main objective of those subcontractors is to lay pipes as quickly as possible without regard to anything else and to get in and out as quickly as possible to collect their money. Is your group satisfied that the overseeing of the work of those contractors on the lines is adequate? I am not talking about the position from the point of view of their safety but about the damage they can potentially do to the railway system.

Mr. Pickett: We have not commented on that in the report. All we have said is that it is been done. It has caused damage to the track and the stability of the system and it was not done according to the standard set, but we do not know whether the contractor or management failed to ensure the standard was met.

Deputy Stagg: At our last meeting with Iarnród Éireann, I tried to establish whether it has hands on supervision of the work of contractors. The contractors do not have a safety remit. They have a remit only for laying cables. If contractors are on line, it is important to establish there is a system in place to ensure their work is overseen.

Mr. Smith: Iarnród Éireann recently introduced a company-wide standard for the management of third parties on the railway. We recommended that in our first report and I am pleased that has been accepted. That is only just being rolled out. We said in the second report that we regard the implementation of that standard as an important issue because of the amount of work that is taking place on the railway system. Equally, the management of contractors who work on the railways is an important issue.

Deputy Stagg: I am puzzled as to why a train driver would drive faster than he is legally allowed to drive. Why would he break the speed limits?

Mr. Smith: There are a multiplicity of reasons. He might not have the skill to know the route and he may have missed a temporary speed restriction that was placed. He might think he is travelling on a different section from that which he is on. There are a number of reasons why drivers over-speed. The need to avoid over-speeding is a problem on any railway system.

Deputy Stagg: What system is in place to inform the driver at what speed he should travel?

Mr. Smith: It depends on what part of the infrastructure he is on. In some areas of the system, such as the DART, one cannot over-speed because it is protected by automatic train protection, which would stop the train over-speeding. In other areas where there are lower levels of protection there is nothing to stop a driver from over-speeding.

Deputy Stagg: Are there only the signs on the line?

Mr. Smith: There is a speedometer in the cab and signs on the route.

Deputy Stagg: A driver would follow the speed signs on the line.

Mr. Pickett: There is no supervisory system to stop a train over-speeding except where ATP is fitted. All the drivers would be trained on that section of the track, therefore, they would be familiar with the bends, junctions and the speeds that apply on that route.

Deputy Stagg: In comparison with other European countries, including Britain, does your group agree that we have a simple, basic rail system? We had a more complicated system, but the Chairman’s party tore it up, as it was said at that time that we should have cars rather than trains and much of the system was destroyed. We have a relatively simple, uncomplicated system.

Mr. Pickett: The DART system with ATP and other sections in and around Dublin with continuous AWS, are better than many sections of rail in the UK and on other routes that are less frequently used. The Irish rail system is simple, but it is appropriate for the-----

Deputy Stagg: Mr. Pickett may have misinterpreted my meaning of the word “simple”. We do not have a complicated network. It is a relatively simple system of-----

Mr. Smith: A relatively small number of route miles.

Deputy Stagg: It consists of radial lines to the capital with very few cross lines. It is difficult to compare it with the European systems, which have complicated city systems connecting with mainland systems. We do not have that here. Arising from that, would your group consider we have a very safe system?

Mr. Smith: That is what we said earlier. That is the case despite the infrastructure being in a desperate state. Iarnród Éireann have sufficient experience, expertise, knowledge and competence to allow the rail system to run safely on that infrastructure because very few trains operate. Therefore, there is a major gap between trains and, consequently, a low risk of their colliding, and there is also a low risk of derailment.

Chairman: That is not the point Deputy Stagg was trying to make. He is trying to establish that we cannot compare our system with European systems because our system is singularly different and basic to the extent that it is in place.

Mr. Pickett: Other areas in Europe and some of the lines in Scotland would be similar.

Chairman: Are they also safe?

Mr. Smith: The quality of that infrastructure is substantially better than that which one would observe here. The track bed, the signalling and the structures are generally in a much better state of repair than the infrastructure here.

Deputy Stagg: There is an excellent safety culture in Iarnród Éireann. There had to be to maintain the safe transport of passengers on a system that was neglected by all of us for a long time, given that money was not provided for the infrastructure. To suggest a safety culture does not exist is unfair to Iarnród Éireann who have managed and safely kept the rail system in operation. We have not had a fatality on the rail system for quite a number years. If one compares the number of people who are transported by rail relative to those who travel by car, the system is very safe.

Mr. Smith: Correct.

Deputy Stagg: Iarnród Éireann has built up a culture of safety and it has managed the system in a manner to ensure it is safe despite the lack of resources made available for infrastructure. That should be stated in the report rather than stating it ranks in the bottom quarter of the systems in Europe.

Mr. Smith: When we mention that aspect, we are talking about the infrastructure not the management. That is an important distinction. We believe IE is very committed to safety. Given the desperately bad infrastructure, that is why there have been very few accidents.

Chairman: As the money decreased, its safety culture increased. Is that not the case?

Deputy Stagg: A safety culture exists in Iarnród Éireann. We need money to make the rail system more efficient, to allow trains to travel faster safely and to enable Iarnród Éireann to run more trains.

Mr. Smith: Given the level of under-funding, pay and conditions have been poor over the past few years, and that has created industrial relations problems. Such problems erode morale and that impacts on safety culture.

Deputy Stagg: Let it be written in clear bold letters in our report that the IRMS states boldly and clearly that the pay and conditions in CIE are a major contributing factor to this situation. That must be addressed.

Chairman: Yes. I will not say what I was thinking.

Deputy O’Flynn: I note from the executive summary that some of the previously identified unreasonable risks reported in the programme as completed were not fully actioned. The representatives are disappointed with the new report that more work has not been done to bring the infrastructure on the railway line up to an acceptable standard. The review of railway safety in Ireland was presented two years ago. Are there other cases throughout Europe where the representatives presented a report and went back two years later to find that no action had been taken by the company on the safety infrastructure they were asked to evaluate?

The sea change of culture was mentioned in terms of carrying out the work. I take a different view from Deputy Stagg.

Deputy Yates: That is becoming obvious.

Deputy O’Flynn: Is the management of Iarnród Éireann capable of implementing the safety report? It is good to have a report which states there are defects in the infrastructure and for the Houses of the Oireachtas to grant funds for the work to be carried out. However, is there a willingness to do the work? Barriers were also mentioned in relation to industrial relations problems. If the representatives come back here in a year’s time and carry out another evaluation, will we still be at 2.5 on a scale of one to ten?

The executive summary also states that consultants are being used in many areas to provide the necessary input or manpower and skills. However, a consultant writes reports. Do consultants or their staff carry out the repairs, take out the nuts and bolts and replace the railway track? It was stated there is a shortage of skills in engineering and electrical disciplines.

The executive summary states that there is no evidence to date of a risk based approach to planning and work activities which, in turn, means there is no objective basis for Iarnród Éireann to prioritise safety activities and expenditure. There is a pressing need for Iarnród Éireann to establish an in-house capability to develop and co-ordinate Iarnród Éireann’s risk management activities. Why has this not happened? Is the management structure in Iarnród Éireann capable of doing what is requested?

The funding allocated to signalling and telecommunications does not allow for essential signalling renewals or for the increased expenditure associated with the delays to the implementation of the mini CTC system. When the representatives were doing the report, were they aware of the fact that the original estimate for the centralised traffic control system in Dublin and for the Mallow, Tralee, Mullingar and Sligo lines was £16 million? I understand that figure has increased to £42 million. Can the representatives throw any light on how this could happen? There are conflicting rumours about this and we must clarify with the management why wrong specifications were given. I wonder if those responsible for monitoring and implementing safety procedures in the company are capable of doing so.

Chairman: Some of those questions were already asked and answers were given.

Deputy O’Flynn: Perhaps they could give me a summary of the replies. I am sorry I was late but I was at another meeting.

Chairman: The commitment of the staff was pointed out and it was acknowledged that although a great deal of money is available today, it does not necessarily mean that everything can be turned around in a few weeks or months.

Mr. Pickett: The first question was whether we had come across this type of situation before. I do not think for any of our previous contracts elsewhere in the world we have come into a railway and seen the infrastructure in such a bad state. There is a lot to be done. I would not say that coming back now six or 12 months later than many improvements have not been made. They are not as good as we thought or as they were predicting in some areas. Our starting point was that they were overly ambitious in their programme. They have made big improvements but they still have more work to do.

As regards the consultants and contractors, in some instances they are doing the work. Approximately half of the UK’s experts are rebuilding the mechanical interlocking. The consultants are not writing reports but doing this work. In other areas the consultants are writing standards or specifications so they are delivering a product to the railway. However, they are carrying out the work in other areas. Underneath the signal boxes there is a mechanical interlocking which prevents the signalman from pulling the levers in an unsafe manner so that there would be two starting signals on a single bit of track. These are old but they fit the purpose. There are few people in the world who are experts on them.

Some 50% of the available UK people are here doing that work for them now. This reflects the fact that the management understands they are not experts in some areas or they do not have the resources to do this work. Where they cannot do the work, they bring in outside people to help them. That does not always mean that bringing in consultants or contractors absolves them from having to do something. Someone still needs to manage them.

Deputy O’Flynn: Is there any difficulty bringing in consultants or workers to carry out this specialised work?

Mr. Pickett: There are difficulties in some areas. They are having difficulty recruiting people to do the work because there are industrial relations problems.

Deputy O’Flynn: Are there other barriers? Are they being stopped from bringing in people to carry out safety work which is of paramount importance to the travelling public?

Mr. Pickett: I am not sure. The barrier is the unavailability of people. I do not think anyone is putting up internal barriers to prevent them from doing the work. That is dependent on the availability of funding and approval for bringing in consultants and contractors.

The other question was about the risk based approach and the approach to prioritisation. That has not come in yet, although it is slowly starting. We are in discussions with them and they are in discussions with the Department about adopting this. They understand there is a need for doing so but they have not yet done it. However, it is important because this approach would allow them to manage all the work and to prioritise it according to the risk rather than doing the ones they think need doing first. They need to do them according to which ones need to be done from a risk base point of view.

As regards the mini CTC, we cannot comment on the reasons for the cost increase.

That was not part of our remit. We are aware of them but we have not reviewed the causes.

Deputy O’Flynn: When you came in to do the additional report two years ago, was it your impression at that stage that the management of Iarnród Éireann were sufficiently skilled and knew enough about rail safety and safety infrastructure to do the work or have it carried out? In other words, were they professionally competent at that time to do the work if the resources were in place?

Mr. Pickett: The individuals had the competency but they did not have any of the standards, management systems or quality systems to back them up. They did not have the standards to tell their people to inspect to or the inspection details.

Deputy O’Flynn: Is it unusual for a railway company not to have all those systems in place and not to have the skills to put them in place?

Mr. Pickett: It was unusual they were not in place. We were surprised by the amount of work that needed to be done to the infrastructure. They did not have an ISO or quality system. However, they had the international safety rating system and audit system. They did not have some of the basics to help support them. It was reliant on the competency of individuals.

Mr. Smith: We would not call into question the competency of the IE managers. We think they have done quite a good job in the circumstances they found themselves, which was a very underfunded railway. However, they now need support to build on what we are hoping will be a very good railway in the future.

Chairman: Thank you.

Deputy Yates: One issue that is not in the scope of the report and has been highlighted as an issue of safety concern is that of overcrowding on certain trains. I raised this matter in the Dáil with the Minister. She said there are no international rules about overcrowding and so on. Buses have insurance limitations on the number of people they can carry. Deputy Stagg highlighted the severe overcrowding on the DART. In some cases, they have removed the seats and there is only standing room.

Deputy Sargent: It was Deputy Sargent.

Deputy Yates: Sorry, I thought he was referring to his local line.

Deputy Stagg: That was on another day.

Deputy Yates: I thought he was talking about the local Kildare line from Maynooth. Deputy Sargent also referred to this. This is an issue of public concern. Could you include a study of that in a future audit? I recently travelled on the Tube in London which is also very overcrowded. Are there, to your knowledge, any worldwide norms in relation to overcrowding? I believe the injuries and fatalities would be much worse in the event of an accident. This also applies to intercity trains at the weekend. Do you have any view on the issue of overcrowding?

Mr. Pickett: We discussed that earlier. We are in discussions with the railway. There is a trade-off, in that making the railway less overcrowded by running more trains could increase the risks from other causes. We said we might look at that in the future. An overcrowded train does not, in itself, cause a train accident but it could have an effect on the consequences.

Chairman: That concludes this session. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the committee.

Chairman: I welcome Mr. Meagher and the other gentlemen. We will try to get down to business straightaway. We received your presentation, which has been circulated to Members. I am sure it has been read by all. Deputy Yates will commence questioning followed by Deputy Stagg.

Deputy Yates: I welcome the Irish Rail delegation and I thank them for the data which we have read in detail. I acknowledge the progress that has been made since we last discussed this issue through the rail safety programme and so on. Needless to say, as you may have heard during our discussions with IRMS, we are highlighting the areas about which we are not happy as opposed to those with which we are happy. Do not take it from the line of questioning that we do not acknowledge but that some progress has been made.

I would like to deal with the unreasonable risks issue referred to by IRMS. In their last report in October 1998, they highlighted 44 unreasonable risks. In their review carried out one year later, they concluded that “very few previously reported unreasonable risks were fully resolved”. Unreasonable risks were defined as aspects of rail infrastructure and systems or processes that either posed an immediate risk of fatality or injury or fell far short of best practice. One example of 11 new unreasonable risks identified was a class one rail defect requiring mandatory removal with 24 hours in Athenry in County Galway. The report said this was still running without any additional controls six days after discovery. Will you account for the unreasonable risk issue and why there should be any risks let alone 11 new ones?

They criticised the absence of a dedicated programme manager to deal with all these aspects of safety. You set up three safety review committees which are chaired by one person. Would you not consider that a dedicated project manager to focus on these issues should be looked at? It was outlined to us this morning in some detail how poor industrial relations is a major stumbling block, to use their words. They said new equipped such as a new tamping machine, radios for shunting work and speed guns are lying idle and not being utilised because of industrial relations difficulties. I would like to ask you about the laying of the Esat cable? It is seems that some of the new risks identified relate to this area. Of even more concern is that a further report done by CarlBro consultants in relation to the laying of these communications cables indicates that serious damage may have been done. It states: “ploughed in and has caused damage to the stability of the embankments and cuttings and in places has not been properly back filled leaving uncompacted ground.” It further states that this “has obvious consequences for the safe running of trains”. I would have thought it was bad enough having the safety problems we have caused by lack of investment for decades and other the all problems but now we have new problems caused by the laying of cable. It seems you are assessing this damage on an ongoing basis. Will you reassure the committee that all this will be put right, that it will not be the taxpayer who will have to pay for it and that the matter is well in hand?

You will be aware that one group of locomotive drivers, the ILDA, has produced an independent report on the new proposals for the rostering of drivers involving longer hours and mileage at a given time.

They hired an independent consultant who reported that notwithstanding all the problems dealt with over the past year, this would lead to driver fatigue and other problems. Do you have a response to that report and is it your intention to still proceed with those new arrangements in view of the recent ballot within the company?

Mr. Meagher: There are five main areas covered by those questions and perhaps we will take each one in order. On the unreasonable risks, I will ask Mr. Garvey, the chief engineer, to elaborate. As everybody realises, a large part of our infrastructure is very old and requires safe management on an ongoing basis. That requires taking specific measures, such as additional inspections, speed restrictions, specific safety management systems, etc., because problems arise week by week in that area. We must manage it safely until we can replace and renew the piece of track, signalling or whatever.

In terms of listing the unreasonable risks, the IRMS identified areas that required attention. Some were eliminated totally during the first year. Other areas were being managed safely. For example, a piece of old track that is not due for renewal perhaps until 2000 or 2001 will be managed in a safe way. In the report, if the piece of infrastructure was not renewed or replaced, it was signified as not being fully resolved, but that did not mean that it was not being managed safely.

There have been three meetings with the IRMS people since then, one yesterday, when, I think, agreement has been reached with them on the unreasonable risks area in that there are no unreasonable risks that are not being managed safely. I will ask Mr. Garvey to elaborate on that and also to deal with the specific point on Athenry, raised by Deputy Yates.

Mr. Garvey: With regard to the 44 unreasonable risks, everybody knows they are not intolerable risks. At our meeting yesterday with the IRMS, 33 of those 44 risks are dealt with and taken off the table by agreement with them. The 11 further listed unreasonable risks-----

Deputy Yates: Yesterday?

Mr. Garvey: Yesterday.

Deputy Yates: What do you mean when you say they are taken off the table?

Mr. Garvey: Of the 11 others, the unreasonable element in them was dealt with.

Deputy O’Flynn: Do you mean they were dealt with over the table?

Mr. Garvey: They were rectified.

Chairman: The safety management was such that the risk was no longer unreasonable.

Mr. Garvey: Yes, that is correct. Of the 11 further items, the unreasonable element is eliminated and is being managed in the meantime until full rectification takes place. For example, on, say, a very old track lines we have speed restrictions, extra inspections and an 80% increase in maintenance to manage them until the track is re-laid and the risk removed.

Deputy Yates: It is interesting that this should have been resolved at a meeting yesterday. If there is only a once a year reporting system, would it not be a better idea to have an ongoing liaison officer working with you on all these issues? It seems that the meeting was organised so that a clean bill of health could be presented to the joint committee today. A clean bill of health is good, but it should not take a meeting with an Oireachtas committee to resolve this. What are your views on the idea of a liaison officer? Factors such as bolt holes and different signalling wiring could create an ongoing need for a liaison officer.

Mr. Garvey: I have no objection to any additional inspections or whatever. There was full openness. The people involved dictated where they wanted to go on the railway line and what files and records they wanted to see. There should be full transparency with regard to what we have to do.

Chairman: They got full co-operation and there was complete transparency.

Mr. Garvey: With regard to the Athenry issue, the No. 1 rail was an unusual rail size. I discussed it with the auditor, David Holmes, who addressed it as part of his audit, and we both agree it is a minor risk.

Chairman: Is he the safety auditor?

Mr. Garvey: Yes. He did the audit. We both agree it is a minor risk. It was not possible to replace it within a day because we did not have the piece of rail available, but the situation was managed by putting in blocks, by speed restrictions and by a daily inspections. It is a safe and adequate way to deal with that problem. The supervisors and the men on the ground are the people who are maintaining railway safety and they take safety very seriously. We depend on them and they have delivered.

Mr. Meagher: Lest there be a wrong impression, it was not the case that we dealt with the unreasonable risks in the interim period subsequent to the issue of the audit report and yesterday. We had dealt with them at the time, but in the presentation in the report the question was raised if they were finally resolved or not and if the piece of equipment had not been renewed or replaced, it was not confirmed as being resolved. When we went through all the detail with those concerned on what we had done, it was accepted by the IRMS that they had been dealt with and that it had happened through the year.

On the question of the programme manager, there was a recommendation in the initial report. This was discussed by Mr. Corcoran with Mr. Maidment of the IRMS in terms of how we should implement it. It was agreed in the first year that there was such a major workload to be undertaken in each of the areas, especially in our infrastructure but also in mechanical engineering and operations, that we should set up steering groups with an effective programme manager for each of the sectors. The liaison between them would be done effectively by Mr. Corcoran as manager of safety. That approach was agreed with Mr. Maidment and it is what we did in year one. We are in discussion with the IRMS about whether we should continue that approach in year two or strengthen the overall liaison.

Mr. Corcoran: In November 1998 I discussed this with Mr. Maidment because of the recommendation that there would be one overall project manager. However, the amount of work on infrastructure was huge while the work in the other operations area and in mechanical engineering was much less, as you can read from the report. We agreed that we would get a project manager for the infrastructure and tremendous work was done with the interfaces in infrastructure, because it is a very large and complicated division of our company.

The operations people and the mechanical engineering people have a project manager. They meet me every month and I meet all the heads of the functions every month at the safety review group. So, all the information, awareness and good practice is being disseminated as fast we can, but, of course, we have to control it because we cannot afford to do things too quickly either. That is commented on in the report. A great control feature is built in to the system by which all of us can decide how much, where and when. I believe it has worked extremely well in the past 12 months.

Mr. Meagher: With regard to the industrial relations issue, we had tremendous commitment from the staff generally to the implementation of the safety and investment programme. We have made a lot of progress and have broken records in many areas in terms of the work that has been achieved. An easy one to highlight is the track renewal where we renewed almost 90 miles of track, whereas the maximum amount of track ever renewed previously was approximately 53 or 54 miles.

In certain areas we have not made the progress we would have liked because of industrial relations issues.

In addition, we are in the process of holding major discussions with a number of groups of staff to improve efficiency, implement flexibility and change work practices and patterns. Certain aspects of the safety programme have got caught up in that area and there have been delays. We are working hard and some of the problems have been resolved. We are trying to involve the staff and the trade unions more fully in the safety programme to ensure that problems don’t arise. We have 160 safety representatives who are very active and we have offered positions on the safety steering groups to the trade unions in order to encourage them to become involved. We have had high level meetings with the trade unions in that regard and there is a commitment at that level to move forward. We have made progress.

Deputy Yates: It is true that these tamping machines, radios and speed guns are lying idle or have difficulties in that regard been resolved?

Mr. Meagher: Take the speed guns for example. There is a particular group not using speed guns but these instruments are being used by the company. That is a fact. Perhaps Mr. Corcoran might wish to comment on that matter.

Mr. Corcoran: Speed guns have been used for several years by people involved on the management side. Difficulties have arisen with a small group of supervisors who are declining to use them until their pay structure is revised.

Deputy Yates: What about the radios for shunting work?

Mr. Corcoran: The radios for the shunting are not being used because of an ongoing problem with the trade union in accepting them.

Deputy Yates: Is it true that the new tamping machine, which was quite expensive, is lying idle?

Mr. Dalton: Those issues have been resolved now and people are being trained to use this new technology. That issue has been resolved effectively and we have had good, active discussions with the machine operators not only in connection with their embracing the use of the new machines but also in terms of arriving at more productive ways of using them. We expect that this combined package will be resolved in the next month or so.

Chairman: How is it possible to ensure better safety procedures in the absence of using radio controls for shunting?

Mr. Corcoran: There has been a traditional way of shunting which has worked very well. As we move into the new century we must continuously improve that so that the risks to shunters, who are obliged to shunt trains in the open and at night, will be reduced. Our record in terms of avoiding accidents has been very good but we are always anxious to discover better methods of operation. This is a better way but it is not seen as such by those we are trying to encourage to use it. We are working to see if we can resolve the difficulties we have encountered. I believe the trade unions are willing to solve it but the current system is by no means unsafe.

Senator O’Dowd: Two further industrial relations issues are specifically mentioned, namely, the analysis of causes of signals passed at danger and the adoption of clear policies to avoid accidents caused by alcohol or drug abuse. The IRMS has stated that there have been delays in these areas because of industrial relations problems. What is the current position in respect of the two matters to which I refer?

Mr. Corcoran: With regard to the first matter, a small item of the entire programme is not being adhered to but that does not prevent me or my staff from analysing signals passed at danger, of which there are a very small number. Every instance of a signal passed at danger is taken seriously and investigated. As part of the change in the process, one small item of information we obtain from other people was not forthcoming. That difficulty has now been overcome.

Senator O’Dowd: So it is not on the list anymore.

Mr. Corcoran: No, it is not on the list anymore. That problem has been overcome. I am perfectly satisfied that our signals passed at danger rate is very good.

Senator O’Dowd: The IRMS stated that there was a union problem-----

Mr. Corcoran: There was such a problem initially.

Senator O’Dowd: But that has been overcome?

Mr. Corcoran: Yes, but it was a very small part of the entire process.

Senator O’Dowd: The second matter to which I referred is the adoption of clear policies to avoid accidents caused by alcohol or drug abuse.

Mr. Corcoran: There have been ongoing meetings held with the trade unions to see if we can find a way to introduce such policies. I am anxious that we do so because drugs and alcohol testing is an essential part of safety management.

Senator O’Dowd: Absolutely.

Mr. Corcoran: I am anxious, as, I believe, are the trade unions, that a workable system will be introduced.

Senator O’Dowd: Why is it part of the industrial relations problem? Surely it should be separate because it is not an industrial relations issue it is a safety issue.

Mr. Corcoran: It is a safety issue but we try to involve the trade unions in these discussions and co-operate with them rather than presenting a policy and saying we want them to comply with it. However, by involving people, delays obviously occur because one must listen to all points of view before reaching a consensus. There is a clear need for a drugs and alcohol policy and it will have to be implemented. The sooner this happens the better. I hope the trade unions will co-operate with us in helping to achieve that.

Senator O’Dowd: Are they not co-operating at present?

Mr. Corcoran: They are co-operating but we have not yet reached the endgame.

Senator O’Dowd: How long will it take to resolve difficulties in this area?

Mr. Corcoran: We are only a short distance away from arriving at a resolution.

Senator O’Dowd: What does that mean?

Chairman: I presume it means that a resolution is not imminent.

Mr. Corcoran: Yes, it is not imminent. However, legislation may be introduced which will underpin this. That would make it easier for everyone to arrive at a resolution. Transport in general - I refer here to road drivers as well as train drivers and other personnel - would gain from the introduction of legislation which would enable all the companies to operate under one umbrella.

Deputy Stagg: That puts the ball back in our court.

Chairman: Will Mr. Meagher comment on question No. 4?

Mr. Meagher: Question No. 4 relates to Esat cable and I will ask Mr. Dalton to deal with that. However, I wish to make a general point in relation to the laying of cable. We used a specific way of laying cable for signalling systems, etc., for many years which did not result in any safety difficulties. However, following from the IRMS report, we asked CarlBro consultants to examine the issue of embankments, etc., and they made a recommendation that it would improve the standard of safety if we were to revise our methodology for laying cable in certain areas in order to ensure that embankments were not undermined. Once that recommendation was made, even though it is a much more costly system to operate because it involves a significant amount of hand-ploughing rather than normal ploughing, we adopted it. At that point, we had laid some of the Esat cable in the original way. The point the IRMS made is that we should reconsider the way that cable was laid and take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that embankments have not been undermined.

Deputy Yates: At whose expense will any possible rectifications be carried out? Has that issue been resolved with the contractors concerned or will the taxpayer be expected to foot the bill?

Mr. Meagher: Perhaps Mr. Dalton will comment on that point.

Mr. Dalton: There are two issues involved here, namely, the physical works issue and the safety issue, and the managing director may already have dealt with them. Members will discover, on reading the report, that the IRMS did not find any particular problem sites during the course of its audit. Originally the audit indicated that we should carry out an inventory of all cuttings and embankments generally as part of an overall inventory of infrastructure. It was in that context that the CarlBro study was done, it was not carried out for the particular purpose of investigating how cable was laid.

During the course of the CarlBro study on embankments, the consultants came across some works in progress where the route was prepared in advance of ploughing. We are laying out the fibre-optic cable, straight from the drum, in six kilometre lengths. Some of the cable is placed directly in the ground during the ploughing process and some of it, because of the nature of the ground, must be left above the surface or a route must be specially dug to prepare for its laying because the ground is too hard to plough. The consultants would have come across instances where the route was prepared in advance of ploughing and made reference to the openings in the ground, which were subsequently filled when the cable was laid.

The ploughing process leaves a furrow in the ground and it is a question of whether that furrow should be stabilised or tamped in order to smooth it out. That is the particular issue in question. We have been using the same system of cable ploughing for 20 or more years and we have never had an incident where an embankment slipped because of the system we operated.

On the contractual issue and the position with regard to Esat, there are three contracts in place. First, there is the commercial licence to lay the cable which is a commercial agreement and is an attractive business proposition to us because not only do we obtain a licence charge and a revenue share but we also own a number of the fibres in the actual cable. Commercially, that is very attractive. It is also helping us to lay out a modern network of telecommunications for ourselves.

The second issue is the contract between ourselves and Esat and in that particular case the infrastructure division is the contractor for laying that cable. We have subcontractors working for us but that is a straightforward construction contract between ourselves and Esat. Third, there is a maintenance contract which we again have, in the infrastructure division, with Esat to maintain the cable.

The issue of what costs might be involved in repair fall into two categories, as part of the construction contract or in the ongoing maintenance of it. I must be particularly sensitive because these are issues of commercial concern between obviously me, as the contractor, and Esat, as the client. The normal arrangements that we have is that there are certain issues of sharing costs and recovery of cost associated with the contract and we expect to deal with it in that context. It is not a major cost item in terms of the overall value and construction cost of the project and the issue in relation to the work is a minor risk in terms of what it poses to the railway.

Mr. Meagher: The fifth item raised by Deputy Yates relates to the ILDA and its independent report. I will make one general point and ask Mr. Corcoran to deal with it. Any change that we introduce on the railway must be safety validated before we introduce it and that is a standard that we have in place. In relation to the particular issue, perhaps Mr. Corcoran will elaborate.

Mr. Corcoran: Initially when this idea came up to do this package we had the principle of the idea validated by Halcrow, Transmark as it was then known, and over the three years that the package has taken to resolve, the detail evolved and we are now in the process of almost finalising the validation and the detail, which I expect to be done in the next two weeks at the latest. This will give us a validation of the package to which the Deputy referred. The hours are shorter by far than what are being worked at the minute and it is a far better package for our train drivers than what they are currently working. The report will show all that and will validate it. We will move on then to implementing it.

Deputy Yates: I refer to the access platform on the DART. Earlier IRMS representatives raised an issue regarding the overhead dangers. A wagon was used to do this and they said that practice should cease. One gets the impression that everything is rosy in the garden, but the IRMS representatives also highlighted the continued absence within Irish rail of a risk assessment plan. With one exception five year plans were not available. A company standard for sub-contractors doing rail work requires urgent resolution and implementation. Iarnród Éireann has yet to embark on its own programme of site visits to identify faults and failure in infrastructure. These controls need to comprise a system under which IE undertakes its own rolling programme of audits and so on.

IRMS noted that the funding allocated to signalling and telecommunications does not provide for some essential signalling renewals or the increased expenditure on mini CTC systems and £20 million is needed. Will Mr. Meagher reply to those specific issues? I know that Iarnród Éireann is holding meetings about meeting to resolve all these issues. Will he give quick answers outlining that all these are being addressed?

Mr. Meagher: With regard to the access platform, perhaps we might get more detail from the Deputy. On the company standard for subcontractors we have methodologies for dealing with contractors. We are writing a upgraded standard. We started the work of writing standards subsequent to the confirmation of the railway safety investment programme, which was last spring, and enormous progress has been made. The issue of the company standard is in line with the timescale set out in the report.

We use risk assessment quite extensively in individual areas. Mr. Clarke from A D Little has assisted us in risk assessment on investment in the track, signalling, level crossings and priorities were set for the first two years of the railway safety programme. We accept that IRMS’s point that there is a need for an overall risk assessment model so that one can prioritise between various areas of expenditure. In the original report that was something to be developed in the 12 to 18 month timescale and we have already had discussions with them on it. They accept that it was not to be dealt with in the first year.

Frequency of site visits have been clarified in the discussions in regard to the unreasonable risks because that relates to the process of auditing and inspecting, the old infrastructure. We have increased those enormously over the last two years. All jointed track is now inspected with a minimum of three times a week. Some of it is inspected daily.

In relation to the signalling issue, there was a point made that we did not have provision for Claremorris. That was clearly a misunderstanding because the provision is there. In relation to the mini CTC where we were putting together our funding for the signalling for 2000 it was, and still is, not clear how quickly the mini CTC system will be put in place but I assure everybody that adequate resources will be available to maintain the signalling system in a safe way pending the implementation of the mini CTC.

I did not quite get the point on the access platform on DART. Perhaps, it is a specific issue that we must examine but one of my colleagues might be able to comment.

Mr. Garvey: We are in the process of procuring a new vehicle. While we are in that process we have a safety system. In other words, as part of the safety statement by law, we have a revised safety statement in place to take care of all the risks associated with that operation.

Mr. Meagher: I want to make the point regarding Deputy Yates’s point that we feel everything is rosy in the garden. Far from it, we do not feel everything is rosy in the garden. We are aware an awful lot of work has to be done. We are through the first year of a five year safety investment programme. An enormous amount of work has to be done and we have got to be very alert to the infrastructure and all the work that has been done. We do not claim that everything is rosy in the garden but we would claim that we are taking all the steps that we reasonably can to maintain the railway in a safe way. To help us to this end, we have the investment and we welcome that greatly.

Deputy Stagg: I welcome the Iarnród Éireann representatives, Mr. Meagher and all the other heads of section. Everything is not rosy in the garden and Iarnród Éireann has not been saying that it is. I have heard ad nauseum from Iarnród Éireann and CIE that it is grossly under funded both from a capital and revenue perspective and it could not provide the level of service demanded by the public because it did not have the money. The company was not allowed to increase fares or was not provided with the necessary capital investment or subvention.

The representatives should be congratulated for keeping a rail system intact given their shoestring budget, despite the attempts of various Governments to take up major parts of it, regrettably. The two main parties in the State, which have 80% support among the electorate, have had an anti-public transport/pro-private transport policy until recently. Given that private transport has failed miserably to provide the necessary transport, everybody is pro-public transport.

Chairman: We have ten seconds advertising time.

Deputy Stagg: That is very good from Iarnród Éireann’s point of view across because that means the parties which were opposed to public transport until recently, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, will provide the funding for the company to do the job it could not for the past 50 years. We are not political at this committee but such comments need to be made occasionally. I am aware of systems which were in place for more than 50 years that were replaced 50 years ago.

I thank Mr. Meagher and another member of the staff who came back to me on issues I raised at the last meeting. This morning, the consultants from IRMS said the only mistake Irish Rail made following the initial report was that it was over-ambitious in what it sought to achieve and the timescale allowed. They did not tell us that 33 of the 40 unreasonable risks were resolved.

A Deputy: They were not asked.

Deputy Stagg: One would think there would have been questions about that and they could have told us. They did not tell us. What 11 unreasonable risks are outstanding? I presume they are the most difficult ones, although perhaps not the most dangerous. Are there 11 outstanding?

Mr. Meagher: There are 13.

Deputy Stagg: Perhaps the delegation could tell us what they are or circulate it to the committee. If there are only 11, perhaps they can tell us quickly. I wish to raise some other specific items. Mr. Meagher and Mr. Dalton described the system of contractors operating on the track. If Esat are putting down a cable under contract with Iarnród Éireann, on its track, should one of its qualified safety and engineering staff be there to ensure they do not do any damage? The job of the sub-contractors is to get the cable down as quickly as they can. The quicker they get out, the more money they will make. Safety is not part of their remit although I presume it is imposed on them in the contracts. Certainly the sub-contractors who do the work do not have the safety culture in their system. Is it the view of Iarnród Éireann that it is necessary to have someone on the spot with them such as a ganger or someone who knows about the safety and engineering of the banks to ensure they are not damaged?

Another item mentioned a great deal in our earlier session, which I thought was a tabloid-type issue, was wipers on trains. It is nonsense. Surely trains in Ireland and elsewhere have been driven in the rain and wipers have been designed which work. Why would it be necessary to have it in a safety report that a train driver could not see down the track? That is unbelievable and is likely to result in a tabloid headline. I would like the delegation to bury that issue absolutely.

Another issue raised by most members was the breaking of speed limits on the track. I do not understand why any train driver would go beyond the speed limit. I presume if he lives Heuston to go to a certain station, he should arrive there at a certain time and the speeds at which he is allowed to travel on various parts of the track would be taken into account in that time. Why would a train driver want to speed? Are there proposals for a regime to ensure train drivers do not speed? I understand that applies on the DART.

It should be reiterated that the situation is good. The main political parties who are essentially funding agents, through the Oireachtas, are now providing money for a safe and efficient rail service. It is a new challenge for the management in Iarnród Éireann and it is important it regularly informs this committee of progress in safety and development.

Mr. Meagher: I have listed five separate points. The first was over-ambition which is valid. We were grossly underfunded for years. In what I call the soft area of training, standards and procedures, little money was available in the past and we were operating on a shoestring. The IRMS recommendations meant that £50 million would be spent in this area over five years, developing systems, standards and enhancing training etc. We have done this with much gusto and they have told us not to do too much too quickly. We have discussed this with them to ensure that when we do produce standards etc. that they are worked properly through the system, which is important and is something we are working on with them. I will ask Mr. Garvey, as the chief engineer, to deal with the outstanding unreasonable risks.

Mr. Garvey: Those items are cast iron bridges which we have a five year programme to eliminate. They are prioritised and there are no restrictions on them but it will take five years to eliminate them. That is the kind of issue one cannot eliminate overnight. It is a specific programme.

Deputy Stagg: Are there many of them?

Mr. Garvey: There are about 30.

Deputy Yates: What is wrong with the cast iron bridges? Are they rusty?

Mr. Garvey: The load carrying capacity of some of them would not be up to today’s standards. There are load restrictions on them. We need to open them up because there is always a risk of a heavier load going over them.

Deputy Yates: So they could collapse. What is the safety problem with cast iron bridges and if it is a problem surely it is an urgent one?

Mr. Garvey: We have not had any collapses. There are load restrictions on these bridges and we co-operate with the gardaí in monitoring that. We have looked at it with IRMS and it is felt to be prudent, realistic and safe to deal with it in a five year programme.

The next point was the increased tidiness of workshops. That has been completed but there are some workshops which need to be completely renewed, which takes some time. That is the overhang there. Fire safety at the Dublin CTC building has been totally reviewed and a large scheme must be put in place. It is perfectly safe because we put in place interim measures. The whole scheme has not been put in place because of the capital investment. That has been approved by our board and the work will take place shortly.

Control systems for private parties were to be reviewed and new procedures put in place before the deadline of the end of April this year.

Deputy Stagg: What are those?

Mr. Garvey: They are procedures for contractors. They are ready and are beginning to roll out now. We are on target but it had not happened at the time of the audit.

A test has been carried out on the mechanical interlocking at every cabin throughout the country. The works will then have to be put in place. That is a two to three year programme which cannot happen overnight. On the agreement of codes of practice with Eircom in relation to their equipment, that is an auditing system, the heads of account have been agreed with them but further audit activity is recommended and we will be putting that in place. That is ongoing.

Deputy Stagg: How is that a safety issue?

Mr. Garvey: That is to make sure that Eircom maintain the ETS instruments. It is an audit system to make sure that takes place.

On equipment rooms and signal boxes and ensuring the fire safety of the security of staff and customers, we have done a survey of every signal cabin and relay room in the country and any building holding safety critical equipment.

That study was completed last November. We have prioritised all the cabins in a two year programme. The first year’s programme has started and that will be completed in two years. That is ongoing and can be dealt with instantly.

As regards removing redundant poles along the side of the line, this is in conjunction with Eircom. A great deal of progress has been made on that, but it is an ongoing plan that will take some time. It is to remove old poles that would have carried the old lines alongside the railway line.

As regards cutting back redundant wires and insulating and securing them, 75% of that work is complete. All the main busy lines where that particularly was a problem have been dealt with and that is ongoing to be completed this year.

The Barrow Bridge, which was built at the turn of the century, is a very difficult problem to incorporate some of the modern safety features. We have had lengthy discussions with the IRMS people. We have looked at bridges in Scotland and we currently have consultants in to advise on the best method of putting in place a facing point detection on that bridge.

Deputy Yates: Where on the River Barrow?

Mr. Garvey: The Barrow Bridge is just outside Waterford on the line from Waterford to Rosslare.

Deputy Yates: It is the New Ross end of it.

Mr. Meagher: The third point related to contractors and the necessity to have one of our people in place. I ask Mr. Dalton to deal with that.

Mr. Dalton: I said earlier that the actual contract is with the infrastructure division and we have subcontractors. There are up to 50-----

A Deputy: Infrastructure division of what?

Mr. Dalton: Of Iarnród Éireann. We have up to 50 of our own people working on that project in conjunction with a subcontractor who is laying the cable. They would be telecommunications engineers, technicians and supervisors and we had up to 40 lookout men at the peak of the process. The contractor is being managed by ourselves as a subcontractor to Esat. Anywhere we have the subcontractor working, we have with that subcontractor a member of our staff acting as lookout man or in attendance with them. We do not leave them unattended.

In terms of the actual management, we have about ten engineers or technical staff looking after the matter on a national infrastructure basis and they would make site visits at various stages. Before the cable would be laid, there would be a pre-survey carried out between the management team and the local infrastructure management to determine which way the route would go and what area would be ploughed, hand dug, etc. The actual ploughing programme would then be carried out with the contractor, but our operator would operate the plough itself, so we would have two staff on the plough ploughing in the cable. We hire the train to the contractor. It is very much a controlled situation.

In the sense of the general management of contractors, as the managing director has said, we have a very robust system. Any new contractors and our existing contractors have to attend an induction track safety course at which we outline to them the hazards of working close to a railway and the sort of criteria and working arrangements we demand. If there is any transgression of that, we follow up severely with contractors. Obviously the potential for losing business at this point is uppermost in their minds so they are well aware of the potential of being out of favour with us. We also have a formal document which relates to handing over or back parts of infrastructure for maintenance by contractors and that is completely tightened up.

One thing to remember is that our activity levels have increased three-fold since the mid-1990s. We are handling three times the amount of work. Therefore, one may hear of issues that arise purely because of the amount of activity we are doing, but it is all being managed and we have moved in a very concerted way to ensure that process is totally managed.

Mr. Meagher: The fourth and fifth issues related to wipers on trains. We are a bit surprised about that because we have a simple rule. If the wiper in front of the driver does not operate, the train does not run. It is as simple as that, but Mr. Corcoran can elaborate on that and perhaps on the issue of train speeding as well. He can take the two together.

Mr. Corcoran: Regarding the 201 wipers, as the managing director said, no train runs with a defective wiper in front of the driver. That is the case and that is the rule. However, there are two wipers on the front of a locomotive, one in front of the driver and one in front of the vacant seat, as it were. These ones have been juxtaposed from time to time to take care of the one that the driver needs. These wipers were under warranty from General Motors in London, Ontario, near Toronto, and they had been trying assiduously to develop a wiper which would work in any conditions and singularly failed at that attempt. When the warranty ran out, we then approached another manufacturer and that manufacturer has given us a wiper that has been tried, tested, found to be fit for purpose and implemented on all the 34 locomotives we have.

I reiterate again that just because we have a defective piece of equipment that we cannot get right does not mean there is a risk to the train driver. The train does not run if he cannot see out and drivers have not taken out locomotives in their time because the wiper did not work. I was never anxious about this particular problem at any stage.

Chairman: Why do you believe it was raised by IRMS?

Mr. Corcoran: I was listening outside. It was brought in as an example of something and I do not know what relevance it had to the particular discussion.

Chairman: Do you believe it was a significant example?

Mr. Corcoran: No, it was not. It was a very insignificant example - extremely insignificant, in fact.

Overspeeding is something that is not a problem in our company, but as managers we need to reassure ourselves that it is not happening, because some drivers for their own reasons, from time to time, may decide to go a little faster than the speed limit desires. It should be remembered that different trains have different maximum speed limits. A freight train cannot travel as fast as a passenger train and one of our suburban trains running from Deputy Sargent’s side of the country would run much more slowly than the inter-city to Cork. There are different train speeds. We need to reassure ourselves that drivers are not overspeeding. All our tests reveal that they are not, but we cannot take that for granted just by saying it must be fine and therefore it is fine.

Chairman: There is no fear of speeding on the Sligo line.

Deputy Yates: I understand the trains travel too slowly.

Mr. Corcoran: Overspeeding is not a safe thing to do with a train. The line speed is set. Two or three miles per hour one way or the other won’t make it unsafe, but going say ten miles over is taking a risk. As a responsible management, we have to have a record of doing checks to ensure that this is not happening. All the checks that are done, and there are many of them because it is only a small portion of the staff who refuse to use the guns while other people use them, say that it might be a mile or two out, but we are not worried about a mile or two out.

Deputy O’Flynn: What types of checks are they?

Mr. Corcoran: They are on the speed of the train.

Deputy O’Flynn: How is the speed checked?

Mr. Corcoran: With a speed gun.

Deputy O’Flynn: Is it on the track?

Mr. Corcoran: It is on a bridge or an embankment.

Deputy O’Flynn: Is there someone on the embankment with a gun?

Mr. Corcoran: Yes.

Chairman: It is not interpreted as a deadly weapon.

Mr. Corcoran: On top of that, there are means of downloading from the equipment in the train which records all the movements of the previous thousand miles of the train. We look at that to see if there are any patterns. It is a tachograph. We only do this to reassure ourselves that there is not a problem. As far as I am aware, and I am well aware of what is happening, there is not a problem.

Deputy Sargent: Can I put to bed the wiper issue which I hope is not an issue? Mr. Corcoran said there are two wipers. Am I to understand that both wipers have to work?

Mr. Corcoran: The ergonomics of the driving cab are such that the driver sitting in his seat has a full view of what he needs to see from the position without looking through the other window.

Deputy Sargent: The reason I ask is that, in the event of a breakdown during the journey, the other window would offer some prospect of being able to maintain visibility.

The other window would offer some prospect of maintaining visibility. Is there a fall-back position in having the second wiper?

Mr. Corcoran: The driver drives on the left hand side and can only drive on the left hand side. The train is taken out of service if that happens. There is no way of that ever happening, by the way.

Deputy Sargent: I feel that a fall-back position sometimes may-----

Mr. Corcoran: We may have a delay scenario, but we do not have a safety scenario. There is a huge difference.

Deputy Sargent: Mr. Corcoran might clarify that. My questions seek clarification of some matters. Deputies Stagg, Yates and I raise the issue of overcrowding this morning. In the insurance for terms, is there a figure for the capacity of each carriage and is that adhered to if there is? Another safety issue on my mind when travelling in from Balbriggan in the morning is the time of the window mentioned at Howth Junction. Is there a limit under which there cannot be a reduction in time for that window? It is a challenge for the DART to serve Malahide and Howth on the suburban line as well as meeting the other requirements of that line. I get asked that question. What is the minimum window allowed at Howth Junction?

The delegation talked about the drugs and alcohol policy and train overspeeding policy and that there were IR problems in relation to those issues. What is the essential issue? It is a question of pay or practice or is this not seen as necessary? Where is the blockage? It sounds like a fairly basic policy area that needs to be implemented and is mentioned in the IRMS study, which also mentions the extra £100,000 for safety regulations. How is that to be spent? Extra personnel have been mentioned; does the delegation have extra information on whether the money will be solely spent on the safety inspectorate? It does not seem a lot of money in the context of the overall need for investment, but it is a figure that is mentioned.

The delegation mentioned that the accident rate fell by 15% in 1999. What level of accident does that represent? If someone falls over or is pushed in an overcrowded carriage, where does it start becoming an accident? When it is reported or is it quantifiable in another way? For example, what is the number of stations that are not accessible on all platforms to the disabled, in wheelchairs or those with buggies or who are injured? This morning in Balbriggan a number of parents had to carry buggies up stairs and so forth. Does that represent a safety issue? Is it part of the safety programme to make stations accessible for such people? I want to know what is behind the fall in the accident rate of 15%.

Mr. Meagher: We dealt with the wiper issue and overcrowding was then raised. It is an issue that arises regularly. We have this problem on Intercity at peak times but it is a particular problem on northern and western suburban trains at present. The commuter trains are designed to take high numbers of people in terms of the numbers of people standing. Much comment arises out of the DART, but although I do not have the figures I am certain that we have not as yet achieved the numbers for the DART it is designed to carry. In other words they are designed for crush loading. The issue would essentially be one of comfort rather than safety. There was an investigation into this in the UK - perhaps Mr. Clarke can add a comment as an independent expert - where many people standing in a carriage was not regarded as a safety issue but as a comfort issue. It is common and Deputy Yates mentioned the fact that at peak times on the London Underground people are packed into trains. Our objective is to provide more capacity and to make it more comfortable. We can do that by providing more trains or longer trains.

Deputy Sargent: To answer my question, there is no upper limit.

Mr. Meagher: Deputy Sargent mentioned the capacity at Howth Junction and the safety issue. With the signalling system we have along the line to the central area we can accommodate a maximum of 13 trains at the peak hour at present and that is all we operate to comply with the restrictions.

Deputy Sargent: They are at the limit.

Mr. Meagher: They are at the limit. We are now starting a new project which will enhance that up to 16 trains per hour by enhancing the signalling system and by doing various things with it. That will enable us to increase our capacity but only in a limited way - going from 13 to 16 will not help us greatly, so our other policy with commuter trains is to lengthen the trains. At present on the DART we originally operated four car trains and now we have some six car trains and as we take in more DART units we plan to go to all six car DART trains at peak times and we plan, in the longer term, to go to eight car DART trains. That takes a lot of infrastructural work.

We have recently introduced eight car suburban trains and as we take more rolling stock on board over coming years our intention will be to have, effectively, all eight car trains at peak times. That is our approach until another method is found to increase the capacity of the central area. We have various recommendations on that in the Over Arup report, which has recommended an underground system. That is how we do it, but there is a current limit of 13 trains in the peak hour.

Regarding the drugs and alcohol policy and the safety inspectorate, Mr. Corcoran will deal with that. Mr. Duggan is a non-executive director on both the Iarnród Éireann board and CIE board and chairman of the board safety committee. Mr. Clarke is vice-president and managing director of Arthur D. Little, which has done quite a deal of work on track and signalling and level crossings. He can give an independent view on other issues.

Mr. Clarke: On overcrowding, my experience of the risk assessment work being done throughout Europe is that it is not seen as a significant safety issue. If we increase the crowding on trains - in certain parts of the world people are employed to push people onto trains, such as the Japanese metro system where people are packed by pushers into carriages - then proportionately, the best work I have seen on the crash worthiness of trains would suggest there would be a greater fatality or injury count in the extremities of the train. However, pro rata to the volume of the additional people on the train in the extremities of its lengths, it is not in the same order of magnitude.

Also, if we then took the alternative of saying we would not pack these trains but that we will put more trains on, we then have the potential for more trains to be on the system and in conflict with each other at junctions and more trains potentially to be exposed to some of the many hazards and risks we are trying to control under this study, such as derailment. There can be a trade-off in the opposite direction. The issue is being studied. The overall concept of overcrowding is not being cited as a significant safety issue as one that is of paramount importance to avoid.

Deputy Sargent: I accept what you said, I have heard it many times before. Ventilation on trains often appears to people to be something beyond their control. I would recommend that signs, at the very least, be posted on carriages regarding the opening of windows. People often feel it is not their problem and that the company should open the windows. That is a basic requirement when talking about comfort.

Mr. Meagher: Drugs and alcohol policy and safety inspectors is a matter for the Department. Perhaps Mr. Corcoran might elaborate on that point and Mr. Duggan as manager of the board safety committee might comment on the accident rate.

Mr. Corcoran: Every railway company of which I am aware has a drugs and alcohol policy. The policy deals with three different areas in which it carries out stringent tests: post accident, a person is tested - if members read the report emanating from Britain they will see this - for cause, if a manager decides somebody is behaving erratically or not coming to work then that person is tested; and at random which is computer generated and applies to every person within the company. That is what we are trying to introduce. On the other side, there are huge implications because of the perceived intrusion on people’s privacy. It is a difficult situation to get around but it is essential. It is in operation everywhere else and I am anxious to introduce it here.

Deputy Sargent: I raised the question with a view to finding out where is the impediment. Is it to do with people not wanting it to happen or that they want money for agreeing to its introduction?

Mr. Corcoran: It could be either one or both. It has not emanated yet. There is resistance to major change in how things are done. There is always resistance initially to change even though the change may be very well justified. Trade unions represent their members who do not see this as a good thing.

Chairman: Does that include alcohol?

Mr. Corcoran: Yes, drugs and alcohol.

Chairman: The attitude towards testing for alcohol seems to be acceptable.

Mr. Corcoran: Drugs are a more insidious danger.

Senator O’Dowd: IRMS say these issues cannot be shirked. If a resolution is necessary to ensure safety they must enforce their decisions or face justified criticism and legal liability should an accident occur. IRMS seems to be indicating that you are not enforcing your decisions.

Mr. Corcoran: We have made a decision to introduce such a programme. We have been endeavouring to introduce it with the co-operation of the trade unions. We have made some progress but it has been slow. I am not certain that this will be in place by the end of this year either.

Chairman: Is it done under medical supervision?

Mr. Corcoran: There is a very strict regime for doing this which is well documented elsewhere. It is done by qualified people.

Deputy O’Flynn: How long have you been trying to introduce it? When did you introduce the policy for it?

Mr. Corcoran: It started about two years ago.

Deputy O’Flynn: And it has not been brought to a conclusion?

Mr. Corcoran: No.

Chairman: I understand the difficulties, it is a question of stick and carrot or a little bit of both.

Mr. Corcoran: Yes, without implying any lack of commitment on the part of any other responsible body. I have no evidence that any of our staff are currently abusing drugs and alcohol. It is an not an industrial relations issue. It should happen.

Mr. Meagher: If we have any suspicion of any member of staff we will take action.

Chairman: ----responsible trade unionism would report. That needs to be said.

Mr. Meagher: We know this needs to happen. It happens best if it happens with everybody’s co-operation. That is something we are prepared to do. That is why we have set up a top level group with the trade unions where we can tease out how we can best implement these issues. We are determined to do that. IRMS have highlighted a few problem areas. We should not lose sight of the fact that tremendous progress has been made. We accept we need to make progress in specific areas and we are determined to do that.

Mr. Duggan: I will advise you of the systems that exist above Iarnród Éireann’s internal mechanisms for monitoring accident and safety performance. There are two areas, the board of CIE is provided each month, at its board meetings, with a safety report setting out the statistics etc. As well as that the board has instituted a board safety committee which covers the three main companies. At those meetings, which I chair, the accident rate and problems arising regarding safety in each of the companies are gone through in detail. We are not dependant on consultants from the UK to look at the situation from time to time.

We have to be sure that the systems are correct for the way we operate. We are moving from a culture where people worked on the railways as a lifetime occupation. There was a great deal of in-bred knowledge in the system. We are now in an era of the Celtic Tiger with a much higher level of mobility between employments. Therefore one must have a much more formalised system. The workload in infrastructure has been increased by a factor of two and almost a factor of three over a relatively short period. This means many new people have come into the system. It is necessary then to have much more formalised systems. We have seen the development of these formalised systems as recommended by IRMS and as recognised as being necessary over the past year. The introduction of these systems takes time and money has been provided for them.

We then look at specific accident statistics. We are not talking about individual major accidents such as ones where fatalities occur, resulting from suicide as that is outside the control of the company. We look at the number of accidents to passengers, per thousand passenger kilometres and the accident rates for staff, per thousand employees in each area. We also look at the days lost due to industrial accidents. They are monitored very closely. I am glad to report that in the past year during the introduction of this new programme all indicators point to a significant improvement in performance within the company. Virtually every one of them is down by 15%. That is quite material in one year. Targets are set for what must be achieved each year and we monitor against them and the historic situation. There is a culture of demanding performance in this area and it is the function of the board to ensure management is in place taking its responsibilities. Hazards arise all the time and one has to have systems in place to identify, control and eliminate them. What we are looking for at board level is that the appropriate systems and the appropriate people are put in place. In reviewing the IRMS report, my concern was to see whether the systems being sought were being put in place in a timely manner. My assessment is that in terms of the near term requirements a very high level of what had been sought has been achieved. Longer term requirements have not been achieved but there is a programme in place to achieve them. As an independent assessment I would have to say that in general the management and staff of the company have undertaken Trojan work in the past year. I must also say there was significant disappointment regarding the extent to which that was not fully recognised in the presentation. I am aware of the work involved. We must remember that we are talking about motivation. Safety is a cultural and motivational issue and it is very important that we motivate people in this area - it is a continuing requirement. There is no financial pay back from safety, so it is necessary to constantly motivate people and we are very conscious of motivational issues and in recognising where there has been significant effort and performance.

Deputy O’Flynn: When did the board set up-----

Mr. Duggan: That was set up before my appointment to the board, at least four years ago.

Senator O’Dowd: Accepting and acknowledging what is being done and the tremendous progress made, the reality is that from the point of view of the public the only person regulating your activity is the railway inspecting officer and yet he is not getting full co-operation from your organisation according the IRMS.

Mr. Duggan: The issue that arises here - we are talking about the freedom of information - is that a number of accidents can result in insurance claims. The information is being provided in a manner which does not necessarily prejudice the company’s position in any subsequent legal actions. Previous to the freedom of information provisions, the company did not have to take this into account in providing information to the railway inspecting officer. However, the company must now look towards possible litigation as well as providing information. The railway inspecting officer is provided with the information he requires, but additional information which may previously have been supplied as part of the documentation-----

Senator O’Dowd: I wish to again repeat what was said, namely, that Iarnród Éireann is moving towards providing the railway inspectorate only with that which it is obliged to rather than freely sharing personal and internal information as hitherto. In other words, in the view of IRMS there is a change in Iarnród Éireann towards giving this information and I find that unacceptable. I do not doubt the tremendous improvements which have been made - nobody questions them - or the integrity of those involved. The only person in the State who regulates the company’s activities is not getting the information he previously received. IRMS says that legislation will be necessary to ensure the railway inspectorate receives the information it needs or requests. I am not happy with the answer in that respect.

Mr. Meagher: I will ask Mr. Corcoran to address the issue as he deals with the relevant inspecting officer on a daily basis.

Mr. Corcoran: I do not accept the-----

Senator O’Dowd: The view of IRMS?

Mr. Corcoran: No, the way they are being interpreted, because we have a very close relationship. The railway inspecting officer now has two other people assisting him who until quite recently worked for me. One cannot but say that we have a close working relationship in that two of my previous subordinates are now railway inspecting officers working for the railway inspector. They are friends of mine and we have a close working relationship.

There are two problems. Mr. Duggan averted to one, namely, that we have a very litigious society which is finding ever increasing ways of suing us for damage or alleged damages. Following legal advice we cannot be certain that handing over holus-bolus all our investigative reports will not come back to haunt us in the courts. The second problem is that we very thoroughly investigate all serious accidents and our ability to continue doing that is very important. My view is that if people’s confidential statements to internal inquiry boards are displayed, perhaps in the public media in a very negative fashion, there would be very negative effects on our ability to investigate further accidents.

Senator O’Dowd: The only point I am trying to make is that the railway inspecting officer seeks information from Iarnród Éireann from the perspective of safety, and the other issues are not as important as the fundamental issue of safety and the right of the regulator to be given whatever information he requires to ensure he discharges his duties. This is the view of the IRMS, and it is a critical issue.

Mr. Corcoran: It was not discussed with us at all.

Senator O’Dowd: It is in the report.

Mr. Corcoran: I know that, but it was not raised with us at the time. The railways inspecting officer asked us to prepare safety cases for all the developmental work which is taking place and to submit them to him. We said we would do that, and we are doing so. Therefore, an enormous amount of information is flowing towards the railways inspecting officer. It becomes a little convoluted in the areas where claims may arise and we must balance our right as a company to protect our financial interests with other things. That is not to say we do not have more informal discussions about things, etc.

Chairman: In circumstances where the company protects its own interests, am I correct in saying the inspector, who is an official of the Department, might be obliged to provide information under the freedom of information legislation which Iarnród Éireann would not be obliged to provide?

Mr. Corcoran: Yes, it has in the past.

Chairman: Has that been discussed with anybody who might be in a position to recognise the necessity for legislative change, if necessary, to protect the interests of the company to ensure it could not be exposed to unfair risk?

Mr. Corcoran: We have had some discussions at my level for some time. We are very anxious to have an open book as regards the Department. We work very well together and we want an open book and to help people understand what is happening. However, the legislation currently does not provide that protection.

Senator O’Dowd: I do not wish to prolong the issue, but what about blotting out the name of the person, for example? Much information is not provided under the FOI. The key point is that the railway inspector should get whatever information he requires.

Chairman: The Minister will be before the committee after lunch and perhaps it can be addressed in the context of the difficulties which the company has outlined.

Mr. Corcoran: We have offered the railway inspecting officers that option. We have offered reports on accidents without the statements which were taken individually, and that offer still exists.

Mr. Meagher: I wish to get across the message that Iarnród Éireann has no agenda to hide issues from the railway inspecting officer. We see no bonuses in that. We want to have an open and constructive approach in terms of improving the standard of safety. If our ability to investigate incidents and accidents became hampered there could be a negative effect on safety and we must have protection in this regard.

Chairman: The IRMS statement seems to say the general approach to this is unacceptable.

Mr. Meagher: Yes, and that is not the case.

Chairman: You are not saying that is the case?

Mr. Meagher: No, not at all.

Chairman: No, you are saying it is far from the case.

Senator O’Dowd: We are told the tracks are inspected with increasing frequency, and rightly so, but the report says the culture of safety has not taken route among the staff at ground level who continue to work in hazardous conditions on the track side with relatively poor protection arrangements.

The fact that staff numbers have increased and that a high proportion of them are relatively inexperienced has increased the risks.

Examination of track patrolling records show that certain patrol gangers do not file a weekly report. The reason why certain safety staff never compile such a report requires careful review.

Mr. Corcoran: Culture is something that is bandied around as if it can be introduced overnight by just demanding it. In a big company like ours it would not be unusual to take five to ten years to change the culture from what it was to what we would like it to be. The report recognises that management’s approach to the cultural issue has changed and improved. It was also recognised that it would not be surprising if changes had not taken place in such a short period. This time last year the plan was still in its infancy. In my view the requirements are in place for a real change in culture in the sense that we accept change is necessary and that safety is the number one priority. I am more than satisfied with the leadership and commitment from the board of CIE down to Joe, that the resources are in place, that we are involving the people and all we now need is to continue with the effort everyone talks about. All the pieces necessary to change the culture are in place. It was mentioned that the risk of accidents is now greater when in fact the figures for last year show a huge reduction. The changes in place are already having an effect but it will take a while to get it from the top to the bottom. Perhaps if we are back here in 12 months’ time, it still will not have happened. That would not be unacceptable provided continuous efforts are being made, which is the case. There will be an even greater effect this year because the fruits of last year’s endeavours can now be seen.

Deputy O’Flynn: Can I ask Mr. Garvey is the safety statement drawn up by management subscribed to by every member of management and by the staff of the company?

I asked the gentleman from the IRMS about works being carried out by consultants. I was a bit confused because the executive summary says that consultants are being used in many areas to provide the necessary input of manpower and skills. I want to ask Mr. Meagher is there a shortage of skilled staff in his company? Is there an absence of staff who are capable of carrying out the safety infrastructures being put in place as a result of funding by the Government and the taxpayers or are his staff refusing to carry out such works? Is this resulting in contractors being brought in to carry out the necessary work? The executive summary states that the funding allocated to signalling and telecommunications does not allow for some essential cyclical renewals or the increased expenditure associated with the delays to the implementation of the mini CTC system. Money allocated to permanent way appear to be in excess of that required to make the railways safe. Could I get an explanation in relation to this issue. It has been said that there is a £25 million overrun on the purchase of the centralised traffic control system for the Dublin, Mallow and Tralee line and the Mullingar and Sligo line. If my calculations are correct, that £16 million budget has increased to £42 million. How did this overrun take place and who approved, monitored and set out the specifications for the contract? If there is an overrun, is it possible that other safety areas may not get the funding required?

Mr. Meagher: I will pass the safety statement issue and works being carried out by consultants to Mr. Garvey. A shortage of skills is the issue. The workload has increased enormously as a result of the railway investment programme. Skills in certain areas are in short supply and we need to bring in skills to help achieve the workload. I will ask Mr. Garvey to deal with the issue safety, elaborate on the question of consultants doing the work and deal with the signalling issue.

Mr. Garvey: I referred to the safety statement under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989. This was prepared by the company in conjunction with the staff and is reviewed as provided for under the law. This is in place in relation to the OCS vehicle revised to take care of the risks. The safety statement lists the risks and mentions how to deal with them.

Deputy O’Flynn: Do the staff observe the safety statement and everything associated with that? You have already said that you have industrial relation problems in relation to some safety aspects. I accept you cannot cover everything. We have a safety statement in our company to which the staff subscribe.

Mr. Garvey: By and large the staff subscribe to it because their safety is at stake.

Deputy O’Flynn: What about all the things you said you have difficulties with? How can you have a safety statement written in conjunction with the staff and the staff not observing it? Supervisors were mentioned. Are they management and how are they treated in the company? Why are they not subscribing to the safety statement?

Mr. Meagher: I would make the point that we are managing each aspect of the railway in a safe way. What happens is you try to update, change and use technology to manage in a better way. When introducing changes there are negotiations and delays. This does not mean that what is already happening is not safe. Therefore, the procedures we have mean we are managing in a safe way. We have involved the staff in a very major way with the safety programme. We have 160 safety representatives throughout the organisation who are very much involved. We have an overall safety plan, plus individual safety plans for each of the departments to which the staff subscribe and are communicated with on. There is a strong safety culture. Much of our railway infrastructure is archaic. We would not have our record without the commitment of people. We have to change with the times to find new ways to develop standards and procedures. We must improve further the safety culture and this is what we are doing.

Deputy O’Flynn: On centralised traffic control, there was an overrun of £25 million.

Mr. Meagher: There is a reported overrun. There is a project where a contract was signed with a particular contractor. That contractor was bought over. There were delays in implementation and there are claims for additional costs due to this. Discussions are going on at the moment and there is a commercial aspect to it. Any signalling project implemented or approved by the board will ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

Chairman: Is it a safety issue?

Mr. Meagher: It is not part of the safety investment programme.

Deputy O’Flynn: Has it anything to do with the money allocated to permanent way which appear to be in excess of those required to make the railway safe? Is this connected with it?

Mr. Meagher: No.

Deputy O’Flynn: If there is a difference of £25 million, will any other aspect of the safety infrastructure renewal programme suffer as a result of the overspend and the contract which was placed for £16 million and will subsequently cost 42 million?

Mr. Meagher: I did not say that.

Deputy O’Flynn: What are you saying?

Mr. Duggan: First, there is no question that Iarnród Éireann has agreed that the cost of completing the mini CTC project will be £40 million. Second, as late as yesterday, when the board of CIE approved the accounts and the audit committee discussed with the auditors the expenditure that had been committed to date to this project was just £16 million. The conclusion of that discussion is that no write down was necessary in the board’s accounts, in that the value of the assets delivered to date exceeded the sum expended in terms of their value to the company. No write down is involved in that. There is a claim with a contractor as a result both of the contractor being taken over and the market for signalling systems changing. We are now in a market where there is a large demand for new signalling systems, particularly in the UK. The contractor is trying to raise the price. This is not unusual but the company does not accept the position. It has a contract in place for the delivery of a system and seeks to have it delivered in accordance with the contract.

Deputy O’Flynn: Was there originally a £16 million contract for a signalling system?

Mr. Meagher: Yes.

Deputy O’Flynn: Who drew up the specifications for that system? Was it someone within the company? Would Mr. Dalton know who drew up the contract?

Mr. Dalton: Again, we are discussing commercially sensitive issues. This is a contract and I am limited in what I can say because we are talking about dealings with a contractor. A contract was drafted with an Italian company which, as the managing director has said, subsequent to drawing up the contract was taken over by a larger company. A number of parties is involved in delivering the contract. Some are American, some Italian, some British and some Irish. Issues are being raised with us with regard to costs and we are resisting those in the normal way. The contract was valued at £16 million.

Deputy O’Flynn: It was?

Chairman: I will not allow this to continue. This matter is not at the core of our business for today and there will be an opportunity to raise it when we deal with the annual report. As we are dealing with a commercial aspect and we have already overrun our time I must disallow further questioning. I invite Mr. Dalton to conclude.

Mr. Dalton: In conclusion, this is a commercially sensitive matter and we are dealing with it in the normal way.

Deputy O’Flynn: Will safety be compromised as a result of the overrun on this project? Will something else in the programme suffer?

Chairman: Mr. Meagher has said “no” to that already.

I thank you, Mr. Meagher, and gentlemen. This has been an interesting morning. IRMS has confirmed the company’s commitment to safety which has been shown by the very substantial achievements of the past 12 months and its plans for the future.

There is no shortage of money and this has already been confirmed. No circumstance exists in which safety would be set aside. It is important to recognise that where difficulties arise efforts are being made to resolve them where trade unions and others are involved. While great progress has been made it is good to hear it is accepted that things are not perfect, the best possible standards have been set and it is hoped they will be achieved in the next five years. I congratulate the company on its achievements. Mr. Duggan and Mr. Clarke have substantiated, from an independent position, the considerable progress made. This has also been accepted by IRMS.

Mr. Meagher: Thank you, Sir.

Chairman: The committee is suspended until 2 o’clock.

Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Chairman: I welcome the Minister and her officials. This morning we heard the IRMS representatives and Iarnród Éireann. Based on what I heard the Minister is to be congratulated on what she has succeeded in achieving through her various agencies and agents. We did not insist on formal presentations being made earlier.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs. O’Rourke): I do not want to make a formal presentation. I have a prepared script and if anyone wants a copy of it they are most welcome to it.

Chairman: The procedure this morning was that we commenced with Deputy Yates, Deputy Sargent and Deputy Stagg and then called other speakers.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I am in the Chairman’s hands. The days of reading from 40 pages of script are well over but I would like the statement to be handed out because it would be helpful. I thank the Chairman for agreeing to the meeting when I wrote to him concerning it. The committee and the Chairman are always most agreeable on such matters. To give the lie to those who say we are on holidays, there is a full attendance here on a day when the sun is shining and the Punchestown Races are being held. Each party’s nominees are present and I admire that. I looked in this morning from my office and I felt like a “voyeuse” rather than a voyeur looking at everyone talking and asking questions about CIE, which was very interesting. I pay tribute to those who contributed this morning, the committee members, the Chairman, Andrew Smith and Anthony Pickett of IRMS, Joe Meagher, Gerry Duggan, Gerry Dalton, Brian Garvey and Ted Corcoran of Iarnród Éireann and Richard Clarke. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Chairman: Will the Minister introduce her officials?

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Mr. Pat Mangan. I will ask them to introduce themselves.

Mr. Welsby: I am John Welsby, Chief Railway Inspector. I am accompanied by Mr. Robin McKay and Mr. Eddie Burke.

Deputy Yates: I thank the Minister and her officials for facilitating this process. The IRMS stated the case as it saw it. While we are focusing on the negative there has been much progress and we acknowledge that. The IRMS referred to funding. We are aware of the five year rail safety programme and the investment. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a lot of money, one of the matters that concerns me is the IRMS said the funding for signalling and telecommunications does not allow for some essential signalling renewals or for the increased expenditure associated with delays to the implementation of the mini CTC system. I asked by how much it was short and it said over £20 million. Is it possible for the Minister and her officials to review the funding, with particular reference to signalling, to see if anything can done?

The IRMS produced a report in October 1998 and we have the March 2000 follow up report. We were told there were 44 unreasonable risks.

We were then told that 33 of these had been resolved at a meeting yesterday between IRMS and Irish Rail. Would it be a good idea to appoint a liaison officer, so that it would not have to await a meeting such as this or a further annual report, but that all issues the liaison officer came up with would be dealt with in an expeditious, ongoing way? Nothing would then fall through the net and it would not take months to resolve something that could be resolved by a telephone call. When I put this to IRMS they said they had no difficulty with it but that it would be a matter for the Minister to consider because she is their agent, as such.

The first issue is money for signalling and the second is the liaison officer. The third issue was raised by Senator O’Dowd and others and relates to page 85 of the report. There was considerable discussion of the possible abuse of drugs or alcohol by drivers.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I heard that.

Deputy Yates: I read page 85 of the report over lunch. It seems the rail inspecting officer was not happy with the situation.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Is that as you considered it here or as it was raised-----

Deputy Yates: As set out in the report. I will quote a couple of sentences:

Some retraction of information flows from Irish Rail is apparent arising from the Freedom of Information Act, by which information in Government’s hands may be scrutinised by the public. Irish Rail is moving towards a policy of providing the railway inspecting officer only with that which it is advised to do, rather than freely sharing personal and internal information as heretofore. The railway inspecting officer believes that by developing and maintaining open dialogue.…

It then goes on to state that the former people who worked in CIE are now the inspecting officers. I am sure that also applies to some of the people here. It is quite a close relationship. It goes on to recommend:

In due course, tensions could develop which will need the strength of statute law [which is why I am raising it with the Minister] rather than mutual goodwill and respect to resolve. These observations reinforce the message that revised powers for IR should be introduced as soon as possible.

I wish to raise two legal questions. We were told that every other railway company had strict policies in regard to drugs and alcohol, with testing of drivers after accidents, random testing policies and testing of people acting oddly. Apparently, Irish Rail is the only rail company that does not have such a procedure. Perhaps this should not be an IR matter but should be like drink-driving measures for ordinary motorists, with State regulations. The second matter is the strength of statute law in relation to the information flow between the railway inspecting officer and Irish Rail. Only the Minister, as the legislator, can resolve those questions.

When Deputy Stagg asked them to outline the 11 remaining areas of unreasonable risk, the main one-----

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Was this put to CIE or IRMS?

Deputy Yates: To Irish Rail. They referred to cast-iron bridges, which we probed them about. It transpired they are metal bridges with load restrictions. The risk is that the bridge might collapse if the weight is too heavy, which is serious. Perhaps that element of the remedial programme could be front loaded.

In summary, my questions for now concern the extra money for signalling and cast-iron bridges and the appointment of a liaison officer on an ongoing basis to issue interim and ongoing reports, rather than once a year. I also posed two legislative questions. The first concerned the introduction of a safety scheme. It is not that anyone suspects any driver of abusing alcohol but that every other country seems to have this. It strikes me as something that should certainly be done after an accident. The other question referred to paragraph 11.2.6, which relates to safety regulation, and statute law providing for the flow of information.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Those are interesting. I heard some of them on the monitor this morning. The Deputy referred to increased funding for signalling, based on the mini CTC. I am worried about the mini CTC, in that it was discussed at board level in 1995, put out to contract in 1996 and is still not resolved to my satisfaction in 2000. The board is awaiting a report, which I think it will have at its next meeting. My colleague, Deputy O’Flynn, also spoke about that this morning. It is called the mini CTC project and involves the laying of cables along the lines, installation of signal equipment at trackside and related hardware and software at stations. It has run into serious difficulties. It was originally to cost £14 million. Detailed specifications were not agreed at the time of the placing of the contract. Without wishing to make any pejorative remark, perhaps that is the cause of the current difficulties.

Deputy O’Flynn: It is taxpayers’ money.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Yes, there is a big difference.

Deputy O’Flynn: It shows what kind of managers we have.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Side issues also arise out of it which are not for discussion today as they relate more to personnel. They are a separate matter. It is not good enough for a very major signalling contract to double, and maybe treble. Does it go back to the lack of specifications? I await the report on that. My Department has asked the chairman to ensure that report is prepared as quickly as possible. CIE was briefed on the position. I will get a full report. I have a brief note on it here. I know it was asked about this morning, and it as well to encompass it in what we are discussing now. It is a separate issue but it is a very serious one. The increased signalling funding, which Deputy Yates quite rightly raised, is only one part of it.

Whatever money is required to make the railway safe will be given. There is no question about that. However, we need to prioritise, which can only be done by the technical experts. We cannot tell Iarnród Éireann what it is to prioritise - it must come to us. Last year £76 million was spent and £100 million is in the safety subhead for this year. Irish Rail is to review its funding priorities within the railway safety programme. We want the risk assessment done. The whole tenor of IRMS was risk assessment. If extra money is needed it will be provided, once Irish Rail prioritises within risk assessment parameters and reports to us on it.

Deputy Yates: The Minister has answered the point. In the same section, IRMS said that moneys for the permanent way are excessive.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): They can shift.

Deputy Yates: The point is that I thought it was interesting that IRMS specified it was a figure in excess of £20 million, which is a lot of money. I am happy with the Minister’s response.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): We are waiting for both the priorities and the risk assessment. The Deputy also raised the issue of the cast-iron bridges. Bridges, railway crossings and so on are part of the whole menu of what needs to be done. We are doing that, year by year. I note the report said they were too enthusiastic. Perhaps that was a reference to the permanent way.

Deputy Yates: The issue of the cast-iron bridges arose because it was stated at a meeting yesterday that there were 44 unreasonable risks, 33 of which have now been resolved. Of the 11 that have not been resolved, one is the cast-iron bridges.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Clearly it is a matter of prioritising within the funding available. I hesitate to say funding is not the difficulty. Everybody has to work to a programme. Any unreasonable risk prioritised will most certainly be attended to. There is no question about that. The Deputy asked if we should wait for this once a year sectioned look at what is happening. I think the idea of a liaison officer is a good one. Somebody within the Department or perhaps a chief railway inspecting officer could appoint somebody to look at all the issues. I understand the IRMS do it on an ongoing basis. The Deputy asked if we have to wait until the end of the year to get all this information or if there is some way of getting interim reports. The best approach might be to look at some interim report, either quarterly or half yearly, which would give us an up-date particularly on the unreasonable risks. I think that is a good idea.

On the question of the possible use of drugs or alcohol by drivers, throughout any industry, the workers in conjunction with management would not wish to see anything of that nature particularly in a sensitive and difficult job which requires full concentration. The Deputy asked what had happened on that front. We are preparing the legislation. Following the IRMS report, the issue was raised by my officials with the trades union at the time because it is a serious issue. Their initial response was that they did not think there was such an issue but, if so, they would be concerned. They then widened it out to include all branches of industry. That is fair enough. I think we shall go into that further.

Though Deputy Yates did not imply it and was gracious enough not to say that cosy might be too strong a word - the railway inspectors’ officers access to information and documentation is not fully satisfactory at present. I have no hesitation in saying so. Arising from the concerns of Iarnród Éireann in relation to the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, this has been the subject of continuing discussions and correspondence with the chief railway inspector and his two colleagues but it has not been resolved to their satisfaction either. We will enshrine it in legislation on a regulatory framework for railway safety which will give the inspectors a statutory right to access to all information and all documentation necessary for these functions. It is the intention to have that legislation ready for Cabinet in September but we should have some interim measure before that. It is vital that the chief railway inspecting officer and his colleagues have access to all such information. I hope we can come up with an interim measure whereby that will be possible. We are proceeding with the regulatory framework. Perhaps I will wait until that comes up in another-----

Deputy Yates: This is the legislation itself.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Yes, the independent railway safety inspectorate will be independent of the Department. I envisage his functions being to audit railway safety statements and to inspect in the area of and health and safety and so on. It is intended that the Government will have the draft heads of the Bill by summer, though that may be somewhat optimistic. That is the my first item of legislation I shall have out of all the raft of legislation which will be necessary. Both Deputy Yates and Senator O’Dowd asked about this issue.

Deputy Yates: I understand what the Minister is saying about the flow of information. The international norm is that drivers are tested post-accident, there are random tests and tests in cases of suspicion - this is what happens in the UK. Will that be dealt with by regulation?

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): No, it is going to be by means of legislation. Consideration is being given to including the independent safety inspectorate in that legislation.

Deputy Yates: There was a feeling that this was not an IR issue.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I think safety is above IR-----

Deputy Yates: That is correct.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): -----because it affects everybody, those who work and those who travel. It is an issue beyond IR. Clearly one would wish that the resolution of those issues would come about through consensus between management and unions.

Deputy Yates: Two issues arose today on which I would like a comment because they are important. One concerns the roll-out of ESAT cable which apparently has a contract with the sub-division of Irish Rail and ESAT. Some questions were raised in the IRMS report about new unreasonable risks that emerged from the beginning. Is the Minister and her Department satisfied about that? The second concerns the thorny issue of the new roster arrangements, the ILDA and all those issues at the ballot. Issues of safety, on which a ballot was held, have been raised by some of the drivers. They are getting another validation report and the ILDA had an independent consultant report. Has the Department or the RIO in her Department any view on those driver roster issues? From a safety perspective is the Department happy?

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): May I say about myself, first of all, as distinct from the Department which can answer for itself, I was very worried about that part of the report. What it said was that the preparatory digging necessary to lay the cable could have the effect of undermining the foundation where the line is laid.

Deputy Yates: The ballast.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Yes, the ballast. In an amateur way I felt that was all wrong. One should not have a situation where that was happening. Cable-laying, it would seem according to IRMS, was not carried out to appropriate standards. I was very worried about that. That is new risk assessment. That is my personal opinion.

Deputy Yates: So the Minister shares our concern.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I share the Deputy’s concerns very much.

Deputy Yates: Irish Rail said it was okay. I think when it was a subsidiary of theirs it was less concerned about it than if it was an outside contractor. That is how it came across.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Personally speaking, I was worried about it. ESAT will say a subsidiary of its company is doing it. When one digs under a line on which there will constantly be a train, it stands to reason that any such digging should be done to very rigorous standards. I do not know the outcome. Iarnród Éireann has since advised the Department that the necessary remedial work has been carried out. Given that the IRMS notified us of what it thinks I await it coming back to me on that issue. I was asked for my personal opinion and I gave it. There was a second question.

Deputy Yates: On the roster.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): For many years Iarnród Éireann had looked for five out of seven days. I know this because a party activist in Athlone, councillor John Butler, is very involved in Iarnród Éireann. He was always saying they needed five out of seven days and a decent wage so that they do not have to rely on overtime. They were the guiding principles which SIPTU and the NBRU worked on with management and Tom Pomphrett of the Labour Relations Commission. They worked long and hard. This time last year or the year before, ILDA talked about the need for a five days out of seven roster and a decent wage without recourse to overtime. Eventually a system was worked out which is being put to a vote. This system allows for five days out of seven and an increase in wages. That seemed to be agreeable to SIPTU and NBRU. I do not know this for certain because we have not seen the result of the vote but it appeared to be agreeable to the leadership of the two unions. However ILDA found a difficulty with that system.

In tandem with this ILDA took its case for recognition to the High Court and there has been a result of that case. I do not wish to say any more about this because ILDA may take the case further, which is the union’s right. Iarnród Éireann is carrying out a further look at this whole matter. ILDA has said it also has an independent consultant’s report.

My instinct is that a five days out of seven roster giving a proper day of rest, along with an increase in salary should provide a safer system than that which was there previously. However, we await the validation from Iarnród Éireann. We already have ILDA’s independent report which has been published and sent to me. I await the coming together of all of that.

Deputy Yates: I am worried about the independent transport safety expert report which ILDA commissioned. I got the impression Irish Rail did not agree with it. Did the RIO people agree with it? I am not in a position to judge.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Neither am I. Perhaps John Wesley would like to say something about the validation process through which Iarnród Éireann has gone?

Deputy Yates: I would like a safety analysis of who is telling the truth about all this.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I suppose we do not know yet.

Mr. Wesley: The report which ILDA commissioned does not say the new process is unsafe. It raises many issues which require to be addressed and are being addressed by the study commissioned by Irish Rail. From the documentation I have seen so far, I am safisfied the new rostering system is safer. The report which has been commissioned by Irish Rail and which is due in two weeks will say, in absolute terms, whether the new procedures are completely safe. They are an improvement on the old systems.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): That is more or less what I said. Five days out of seven must be safer. I know about these things from the activist who has been informing me for years on the matter.

May I make a political point, Sir, without malice? I was surprised at Deputy Yates and Senator O’Dowd letting Deputy Stagg away with his criticism of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael this morning. Deputy Stagg’s party was in Government for 11 of the past 25 years, some of the time with Fine Gael.

Deputy Yates: We allow Deputy Stagg a certain excess.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Is he allowed hyperbole?

Deputy Yates: We allow the Minister some too.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Deputy Stagg’s party was in Government for 11 of the past 25 years. One would think he had no responsibility for government and that Deputy Yates and I had. Deputy Quinn was Minister for Finance for two and a half years when the subsidy was reduced. I realise that all Ministers for Finance must trim spending. That is their job. I was amazed to hear Deputy Stagg repeat his criticism again and again. Did the Labour Party not examine the transport system during those 11 years?

Deputy Sargent: Deputy Stagg is as bad as the Minister.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I gave the money.

Chairman: If Deputy Stagg were here he would say he was only recently confirmed. He could not make these statements with any authority previously.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): He was in my Department for two and a half years.

Deputy Currie: Deputy Stagg may be watching proceedings on television, as the Minister did this morning. If so, he will be here very quickly.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): He is a voyeur, not a voyeuse.

Deputy Currie: Well.

Deputy Sargent: Deputy Stagg was allowed some latitude this morning because I and other members were focusing on the safety issue. From reading the IRMS and ILDA reports, I take it that an independent inspectorate which is not compromised through an involvement with Iarnród Éireann is the objective.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): That is what is envisaged and what will be enshrined in legislation.

Deputy Sargent: Where stands the railway inspector’s office? Does it have more staff?

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): It has three instead of one.

Deputy Sargent: Will it cease to operate if the legislation is enacted and the independent inspectorate comes into being?

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): They will be transferred to their new functions in a statutorily detached way,.

Deputy Sargent: I wished to clarify that. It had been mentioned that there was a 15% reduction in the rate of accidents in 1999. That is good news but in celebrating this reduction we might overlook some problems which remain to be resolved. I hope the September deadline for enacting legislation will be met.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): The legislation will be discussed by the Cabinet during the summer and will be debated in the Houses in the autumn. The IRMS report recommended that more money be spent on rail safety. That finance has been provided and I thank members for their recognition of that provision. Second, the report spoke of the need for more than one railway inspector officer. We have appointed three. Third, it recommended the establishment of an independent safety authority. We are proceeding that way.

Deputy Sargent: Policies regarding the use of drugs and alcohol and overspeeding have been mentioned.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I was amazed to hear that. The condition of the tracks does not allow for overspeeding.

Deputy Sargent: That is another worry. There has been a two year period in which attempts have been made to have these policies put in place by negotiation and agreement. There seems to be a intractable problem. Does the Minister feel the time has come to make a judgment on the voluntary code? Is there a need for more action from the Department? Perhaps there is not. I am merely seeking ways to remove the logjam. There appears to be a great reluctance to implement the policy and meanwhile a serious safety problem is showing up. This may be a symptom as much as anything else.

The safety issue overlaps with the question of comfort, particularly with regard to overcrowding.

Deputy Sargent: Depending on what side of the fence one is on, it is a thin line between safety and comfort. If a person is too warm, it could be said he or she is uncomfortable but it could also be classified as a safety issue, depending on his or her condition. Is there a role for the Department to ensure that the comfort of passengers is looked after to an optimum level?

I mentioned earlier that the manufacturing specifications for some carriages allow for overcrowding as they have windows which can be opened. However, some do not have such windows which means that overcrowding is extremely uncomfortable and gives rise to anxiety among passengers. Manufacturing specifications allow for other overcrowded situations on certain journey lengths, but not on journeys between Dublin and Cork which include an Arrow service. Perhaps that is not intended in the manufacturing specifications. It is not right to say these trains are designed for overcrowded situations when journey lengths and other factors are not included.

It was stated in the IRMS report that morale was an important part of safety and the culture of improving safety and that the uncertainty over the future of the company was leading to low morale and, therefore, impeding progress. It was only one of many aspects mentioned and I will not dwell on it to the exclusion of others. Plans for future development are made in the Department. I am not seeking clarification on the future of the railway system. I want to know if morale will be taken into account in statements made by the Department.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I understand what the Deputy is saying and I referred to most of it this morning. Questions were asked about the independence of the railway inspectorate. We said that would be reflected in the legislation and that the railway inspectors would become independent. They will have that remit by statute.

The IRMS report identified trade union difficulties in implementing some of the necessary changes. I heard Mr. Smith mention tamping machines. The unions will say they want to co-operate in every way on safety issues. The Deputy asked if a voluntary code of practice could be introduced.

Deputy Sargent: That has been tried.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): It has. When the report was published, both employers and employees read it and reflected on it. Items of unreasonable risk were attended to immediately because they needed to be done. I hope IRMS will not need to write another similar report. I do not know how that can be underpinned in a huge organisation with many employees. The workforce want to show they are fully in favour of safety and engaged in the safety remit.

Deputy Sargent said that overcrowding is uncomfortable. The European Union or any country in the EU has not introduced directives or legislation to deal with this issue. This matter was the subject of an oral question in the Dáil recently. When I went to a European Council transport meeting, I asked members informally about it and almost all of them had experienced passenger distaste for overcrowding. However, they had not introduced legislation to deal with it. The point was made this morning that if there were fewer people on trains, it would mean more journeys and thereby a greater chance of safety mishaps.

Deputy Sargent mentioned the Arrow service and he wanted to know if the capacity or make of a train would be taken into account when used for long journeys. I do not know the answer to that as it is a technical matter. The then railway inspecting officer, who is now the chief railway inspecting officer, checked the trains independently when complaints were made. He spoke to CIE and then checked them again. An internal study is now being carried out which will be published in a couple of weeks’ time. The railway station master allows people to get on and off the train. He must tell people to wait if there are too many passengers on the train.

Deputy Sargent: They do it themselves in Malahide because they cannot get on the train.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): They stay there until the next train.

Deputy Yates: I was on the tube in London last week and when the train was full, people had to wait for the next one.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): They could not physically get on the train.

Deputy Yates: Exactly.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): The tube is dreadful. People are pressed against each other.

Deputy Sargent: One does not have to go to London to see that.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): The doors on the tube close in one minute and there is the fear that one’s skirt or trousers will get caught in them. We will see what is published in the internal study.

Deputy Sargent mentioned staff morale. It was stated this morning that morale can be diminished by uncertainty.

Deputy Sargent: IRMS stated that poor morale is bad for safety and is affected by the continuing uncertainty over the future of the railway routes.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Does it state railway routes?

Deputy Sargent: Yes. It states they require urgent investment. Perhaps people are afraid routes will be closed.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): The Government took a decision that all existing routes would be kept open. That is where the £500 million had to come from.

Deputy Sargent: I do not know what it means by that.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): It is an interesting question about morale. There would not have been any doubt about the future at the time the study was done. Since then, we have an idea of how we will move forward. A forum has been set up under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness which will meet within the next two weeks. We have asked for nominations to it. The process of change will be decided at that forum. That forum has nothing to do with salaries or wages which are issues for other professionals. That forum will discuss the future and it will have nominees from the trade unions on it. It has been given our sketch paper and it will be given any future papers.

It is difficult to boost morale in a large company because, with the best will in the world, management or union heads find it difficult to visit everyone at all the stations and stops. I agree with the Deputy on the general principle.

Understanding and knowledge of the way forward empowers people.

Deputy Sargent: Is there no further help that we, the Minister or anybody else can offer on the implementation of the policies? Over speeding, drugs and alcohol were problems. There is a policy in relation to the use of speed guns

Chairman: It arose in the context of speed guns this morning. There was no evidence here this morning of actual over speeding. It refers to the use of speed guns to establish or confirm what is happening. All that was said was that a mile or two above the limit is within the margin of safety.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I suppose it would be. No garda would stop someone driving at 62 mph on a road with a limit of 60 mph.

Chairman: There was no suggestion of over speeding.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Arising out of the IRMS, Pat is having a meeting with the trade unions shortly to go through the issues thrown up by the IRMS in regard to staff concerns and so on.

Chairman: We also considered this morning the cultural change that is necessary. That must be progressed but it will not happen overnight.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I said that on “Morning Ireland” and a couple of CIE employees telephoned me to say that was exactly what they felt. It went from a state of near penury to a state of being flush, in terms of infrastructural needs, where cash was not a worry. I said on the radio that it is very difficult to turn around the Titanic. I heard one of the chaps saying that this morning - I think it was the IRMS fellow. That is the truth. The company had been used to living on the edge, in terms of money, but now it knows that £340 million or £380 million is available for five years and that all its infrastructural needs will be met. At one fell swoop, that wipes away the prop of being able to say it cannot convert the lines to continuous welded track or do the railway level crossings because of lack of money. While that was the truth, it was also a prop that was suddenly taken away and the whole ship had to be turned around and the work had to be done. I guess that is difficult to do in people’s minds.

Deputy Sargent: Lest we lose the run of ourselves, we are talking about safety investment here. All the investment needed for park-and-ride and so on is another day’s work.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Of course. I am talking about conversion to continuous welded track, railway level crossings, iron bridges-----

Deputy Sargent: I know, but investment on safety leaves the other areas of investment in the shade, and rightly so.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I am obsessed with safety. I have no difficulty with that.

Deputy Sargent: I am obsessed with lots of areas.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I am obsessed with safety. It is the first requisite and other things will follow.

Chairman: He is obsessed with a lot of things. Perhaps he needs counselling.

Deputy Sargent: Only in relation to the development of railways.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Fair enough.

Senator O’Dowd: I apologise for being late. I welcome the Minister and her officials. I read briefly the summary that was sent to me, which I welcome, particularly the-----

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I did not read that.

Senator O’Dowd: I assumed it had been read. It outlines the role of the new safety regulatory framework, which is excellent. The relationship between the railway inspecting officer and Iarnród Éireann is referred to on page 85. It appears, from what IRMS is saying, that there are some difficulties in that regard and that information required has not always been given. It states there has been a retraction of some information to the railway inspecting officer and that Iarnród Éireann is moving towards providing the RI only with that which it is obliged to do, rather than freely sharing personal-----

Deputy Yates: We have covered this in some detail.

Senator O’Dowd: I apologise.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Deputy Yates said that Senator O’Dowd raised that this morning. I heard him because I saw most of the meeting on the monitor. It is worth dwelling on it again. I think the information should be freely given, even to the railway inspectorate which is not completely independent. I urge Iarnród Éireann not to put up walls where there is no need for them and to give information that is sought. This is all in the interest of the pursuit of safety. We are all involved in safety, including this committee, and the information should be given out.

I do not want to dwell on the past because, as you know, Chairman, I am forward looking. A year ago all sorts of documents could be bandied around all sorts of places and nobody asked permission. However, we will not go into that because we are in sunnier climes now. I hope that CIE will say, pending the forthcoming legislation which will make John Welsby and his two colleagues absolutely statutorily independent, that it will give any information, documents and so on required.

Senator O’Dowd: What can we do as a committee?

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): It would not be a bad idea-----

Chairman: They suggested this morning that they were quite prepared to be open on every aspect, except risks associated with the company in the case of accidents-----

Deputy Yates: Claimants.

Chairman: Claimants. They felt that the Freedom of Information Act did not cover that kind of information if it was given to the railway inspector. They felt they would be obliged under the Act to disclose it, which would further expose the company.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): The railway inspecting officer is not running around waving it in the air, nor is he or his two colleagues likely to. Therefore, that is not a good enough defence. If they require information, they require it for their job and not for publicity purposes. They will be statutory and independent by the end of the year, I hope, when they will have every right to get everything they want. However, pending that, they should get it anyway because there should be more-----

Chairman: It is part of the cultural change.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): It is. Iarnród Éireann has a good safety record. However, the trains do not run that often and there are more risks when things get busier. The increase in carriages, trains, stations and so will increase the risks. The risk assessment was the biggest thing looked at by IRMS in its study. I listened to them and Iarnród Éireann and I acknowledge freely that Iarnród Éireann has done an amount of work in the intervening 12 month period.

It should not get spiky when things are pointed out to it because that is the purpose of the exercise. We are paying IRMS for this. It is giving a warts and all review, which is how it should be. Iarnród Éireann said in its statement that the bad publicity attendant on the safety report was bad for morale, the railways and so on. Newspapers and radio cannot be dictated to, nor should they be, on the way to approach a study. Unreasonable risks were identified, some of which had not been attended to since the previous report, which is not good enough. I say that very clearly, with no animosity. Joe Meagher and his colleagues here this morning are among the finest and most dedicated people in CIE. They came to see me the day before the report was published and we had a very thorough talk about it.

I have much time for that group of men who were here this morning. They should not be spiky because it is for their good as well. It would be better if they threw off a bit of that over-sensitivity about an issue. We simply cannot allow unreasonable risks to be left unattended to. They are responsible to railway safety at the end of the day. I am politically responsible for it and they are responsible in a technical sense. It is simply not good enough. They have, however, done a lot and in the coming months, they will lose that feeling of over-sensitivity about how they have been working. They spent so many decades trying to manage in very straitened circumstances that, I suppose, it is hard to shake that off too. A cultural change is what is needed but the unreasonable risks cannot and will not be allowed to continue.

This committee plays a real role. As well as giving me the report and laying it before the Dáil, the committee scrutinises the matter further which is good. I will look at what Deputy Yates said about meeting at more regular intervals and not waiting another 12 months for us all to assemble solemnly again. Quarterly meetings might be a bit much but somebody should go to and fro. Maybe we should have six monthly reports. What do you think about that?

Mr. Mangan: The liaison issue is the one which has been raised. What happens is that the report comes at the end of the year and hits like a punch to the stomach. If there is more ongoing contact, there are fewer surprises.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): There would be fewer surprises in it as to the outcome. We will look at that area.

Chairman: Looking at the priorities would be a help.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Yes. We should look at the priorities, at the unreasonable risks and at the new priorities which appear to have been thrown up today.

Senator O’Dowd: I am sorry to come in again but I am on two committees. I am on the All-Party Committee on the Constitution as well and I have to attend it shortly. The last point I want to make that when comparing the first report to this one, there is still much concern about safety.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): There is.

Senator O’Dowd: I am still concerned. I know the Department does not run Iarnród Éireann but sometimes when I reading this report, I think I am reading the first one in terms of the safety culture. That still concerns me and everybody else. Is there anything further that can be done to-----

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): Deputy Yates brought up the idea of liaison, that is, of somebody who would liaise with IRMS, Iarnród Éireann and the Department. I got shock too. When I took the report home one weekend to read it, I felt I was reading what I read a year and a half ago when reading some sections of it. I was shocked, but a lot of work has been done. It will take a while to bring it all together. No railway is safe in that one cannot say there will never be an accident. That would be a sort of eldorado-type situation. At the same time, it is our duty to make the railway as safe as we practically can. I accept that point because I got that déja vu feeling when reading the report and was shocked by some of the unreasonable risks identified.

Chairman: I thank the Minister for her usual frankness and directness. We had a good day.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): This morning was excellent.

Chairman: I thank the Minister again.

Minister for Public Enterprise (Mrs O’Rourke): I thank you all for coming.

Chairman: The committee is adjourned until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 18 May 2000, when Aer Lingus will appear before us.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 3.04 p.m.

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Appendix IV

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ENTERPRISE AND TRANSPORT

List of Members

* In the absence of Deputies B. Daly, M.Brady, L. Lawlor and Senator L. Fitzgerald respectively

* John Cregan appointed in substitution for Des Hanafin on 13/07/99.