Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

The Labour Party is happy to jointly table this motion along with Fine Gael and the Green Party. No doubt it will be supported by many other Members because it is a commonsense approach to an aspect of transport policy that is critically important. The proliferation in road freight comes with a significant cost in damage to the environment, as a contributing factor to deaths on the roads, as a major contributor to road congestion, and in the lack of competitiveness for the business community.

Ours is a commonsense approach which pays attention to what is happening in other EU member states. In many ways, it could be described as a "no-brainer". The intention is to encourage action by industry on something that will benefit the entire community on several fronts.

Nothing symbolises the Government's inaction and laissez-faire attitude to transport and the environment more than its attitude to rail freight. Basically, this Government does not have any policies for rail freight. The latest pan-European statistics on rail freight show that Ireland experienced a significant reduction in the tonnage of goods carried by rail in recent years. Rail freight decreased by 28% in 2005 and a further 47% in 2006, with the result that it has all but disappeared. The latest CSO statistics indicate that the large white van rather than the freight train is now the workhorse of our freight industry. Practically all our transported goods, or 99.5%, are transported by road. That is a serious indictment of the failure of the Minister for Transport and his predecessors to devise holistic transport policies that would ensure freedom of movement and protect our environment. Little or no action has been taken and there has been no attempt to initiate any new policies that might reverse the dramatic downward trend of recent years. In 2005, almost 100,000 goods vehicles travelled 1.4 billion freight kilometres and carried 172 million tonnes of goods. By contrast, rail freight carried only 2 million tonnes in 2005 and less than 1 million tonnes in 2006. That is a further indictment of this Government's lack of policies.

I can give several examples of where the trend of recent years could be reversed by transferring significant business from road to rail. On various parts of the Dublin-Sligo line, the transport of tar, containers, kegs and bulk oil was discontinued in 2005. Oil and unit-load container services were discontinued in 2005 on various parts of the Dublin-Westport line, while kegs went in 2006. This happened because the Minister took a completely hands-off approach to the issue. On various parts of the Dublin-Galway line, transport of containers discontinued in 2004 and 2005 saw the loss of kegs and cement. Transport of fertilisers was discontinued on various parts of the Dublin-Cork line in 2002, with cement following in 2004, containers in 2005 and kegs and beet in 2006. On the Dublin-Belfast line, fertiliser and cement freight was lost in 2003, while containers and kegs followed in 2004. On the Limerick-Rosslare line, containers were lost in 2005 and kegs in 2006. On the Cherryville Junction-Waterford line, containers were lost on 2005 and kegs in 2006. It appears that much of the lost business will never return. That is an indication of the Minister's inability to realise the broader picture when it comes to transport and the environment.

The Government cannot say it was not warned about this. The strategic rail review of 2003 set out four options for the Government on rail freight, namely to do nothing, to stimulate Iarnród Éireann to improve its position, for the Government to become actively involved in growing rail freight, which is the logical and responsible approach, or to limit Iarnród Éireann's role and introduce new logistics partnerships. Save for complying with a few EU directives, it is clear to all that the Government has chosen to do nothing. Its lack of policy on rail freight has allowed Iarnród Éireann to shed its rail freight operations and dismantle much of its infrastructure. The strategic rail review spelled out in detail the consequences of doing nothing, warning that the disappearance of rail freight could pose serious problems for the future in terms of congestion and the environment. That report indicated the cost of doing nothing was €63 million per year, which must be a significant under estimate of the real cost. In environmental terms, the transport sector was responsible for 33% of Ireland's energy related CO2 emissions in 2005 according to Sustainable Energy Ireland. This was higher than any other sector. Within transport, road transport accounted for 65% of the total fuel consumption. Fuel consumption by road freight was of particular significance, increasing by 264% over the period from 1990 to 2005, or 9% per annum, which makes it the mode with the highest growth rate.

The 2004 road traffic collision fact book, which is the most recent edition, reveals that 19% of vehicles involved in fatal road deaths and 13% of the vehicles involved in accidents where victims suffered injuries were goods vehicles. That adds a significant additional cost to transporting most of our freight by road. Given that the economic cost of every road fatality is estimated as being in the region of €1 million, there are clear economic as well as environmental and societal reasons for encouraging a switch from road to rail freight.

When I raised this issue in a parliamentary question to the Minister a few weeks ago, he could not point to any clear policy initiative undertaken by this Government on rail freight other than the minor EU directives I referred to earlier. He claimed that Iarnród Éireann continues to pursue a policy of growing its rail freight business where opportunities present. That is patent nonsense because, in the absence of a subsidy or some kind of financial incentive, Iarnród Éireann has no chance of growing its rail freight business, as the experience with Norfolkline clearly demonstrates. That company wants to expand its trade in Ireland by moving freight by rail but it is not cost-effective for it to do so because our Government offers no incentives.

The situation could be very different. The Irish Exporters Association claims it has 22 companies interested in rail freight. Significant opportunities would arise for regaining rail freight if the Government made it financially viable. Container transport could be restored to the lines from Clonmel and Ballina to North Wall, Waterford to Cork and elsewhere. The cement business could be reinstated. The current quantities of timber being transported to Waterford could be increased and timber freight could be restored to Clonmel. The Minister has only to observe the practice in many other EU countries. In Britain, a grant is made available to the rail user, with a subsidy offered towards infrastructure and rolling stock. In France, a grant is available to the state operator amounting to a subsidy to SNCF. In Germany, a tax break offers operators a 50% discount on energy taxes. In Austria, a grant is available to rail users and subsidies are paid on infrastructure, rolling stock and training. The Minister should open his eyes to the policies of other EU states on rail freight. If it is to be encouraged and expanded, a system of subsidies must be in place and that is key proposal in the motion. It is also time to lay to rest a number of the spurious arguments against offering a financial incentive to encourage rail freight. The usual argument that such freight cannot survive in Ireland because the distances are too short does not hold water. Two of the most profitable freight flows operated by Iarnród Éireann are Tara Mines zinc ore, for which trains travel approximately 48 miles, while the shale traffic on the Limerick-Ballybrophy route to Irish Cement's factory in Mungret, County Limerick, travels only 16 miles. There are also many examples of short, profitable routes throughout the UK.

The motion, jointly tabled by the three main Opposition parties, is sensible and logical and its proposals could be implemented quickly if the political will existed. They would bring undoubted benefits by improving road safety, reducing traffic congestion and, most important, improving the environment. There are no further excuses for failing to act.

See this speech in context