Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

On behalf of the Green Party, I am happy to support this motion. It is significant and welcome that the Green Party, the Labour Party and Fine Gael have joined together in this respect because it shows a widespread realisation on this side of the House that the Minister, who has just left, is getting it wrong. His head is stuck in the sand with transport planning that belongs in the past. It is not looking forward, nor is it the future.

It was interesting that we had an animated discussion at Question Time last week on this rail freight issue. The Minister made one point which should be corrected. He cited the failure of the Norfolk Line to develop services here as an example of why rail freight is not possible. In reality the only ray of sunshine at the moment is the current planned expansion from two trains a day to three from Waterford to Ballina. This essentially is a Norfolk Line service being operated by Iarnród Éireann.

In Ireland the Government is hell-bent on shutting down rail freight. An Iarnród Éireann company has suffered under decades of Fianna Fáil and therefore lacks the necessary ambition or faith in its own potential. Even in circumstances such as that, however, it is possible for one or two remaining rail freight services to survive. It is a survival, however, against the intentions and policy directions set out by this Government.

Fundamentally, this is an issue of economics and what the analysis should include. The Minister openly and honestly concedes he does not believe in rail freight and that he wants to shut it down. He cites economic reasons, and Deputy Catherine Murphy is exactly right in saying that it depends on what is counted in the analysis.

I discussed recently with representatives of the National Roads Authority what they count when doing cost-benefit analyses for their roads-based transport system. It seems clear they are not counting all the costs that are truly involved. They are not counting the congestion, for instance, from the increase in induced traffic we are bringing on to the roads. These take away all the benefits which were supposed to be delivered from the various sections of new roadway that are being provided. They are not taking into account the climate costs, which are becoming increasingly apparent. Sir Nicholas Stern ascribes something like €70 a tonne as a valid economic cost applied to emitted carbon. Given that rail freight is estimated in the UK to be emitting something like a tenth of the amount of carbon per tonne-kilometre carried, as a road-based alternative, there is a significant cost involved if one projects forward. Economics as currently being developed in its latest format would come to a very different conclusion from the narrow out-of-date resolutions arrived at by this Minister for Transport.

It is interesting to look at recent experience in the UK. The rail network there is turning into a success story in terms of rail freight. The British have not carried as much rail freight since the 1950s. They are planning something like a 50% expansion by tonne-kilometre carried to 2015. That is an example in a country that is not dissimilar to Ireland in terms of the business being conducted and it is significant that they are able to develop their rail freight services.

By comparison, in Ireland in 2006 the estimated reduction in rail freight traffic was something like 40%, a damning indictment of this Government's policies. Keg carrying, which was carried on in this city for many years, was shut down last year. It was a consistently profitable operation until a few years ago. As a result there was a major increase in the number of lorries on the roads which means more accidents, while the engines emit diesel that is getting into the lungs of every child they pass. This will cost us for years to come when our use of oil increases by 7% per annum because of that type of short-sighted Government policy. It will cost us when oil becomes prohibitively expensive. One can only appreciate the potential that would exist if there was a change in Government and people started to have faith in the future and in their ability to manage their affairs in a more efficient, safer, cleaner, quicker, rail-based transport system.

That faith does not exist on the opposite side of the House. Instead, we have a backward thinking Luddite position on transport policy. I do not want to defame that group by assigning the current Minister for Transport's planning philosophy to the Luddites' original motives.

The motion sets out in clear terms the reasons we need to change. The only way we can get change is through a change in Government. That is the reason I support this motion and the various parties joined together in making that claim, as well as my Independent colleagues. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, should he return.

See this speech in context