Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I am sharing time with Deputies Pat Breen and Neville.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this motion. I hope that tonight is a sign of things to come, in terms of co-operation between my party, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and indeed, the Green Party, bringing forward policies that make sense in terms of the environment, the economy and, perhaps most importantly, people's quality of life.

If alternatives to a current system are proposed one has to outline the reason they are necessary. We have a problem on a number of levels with road transportation. Despite the fact that we are building bigger and wider roads, the reality is that they are not coping. There has been a 70% increase in goods being transported by road over the last ten years. That is not sustainable into the future regardless of how quickly we build roads, even if that is the way we want to go.

It is causing significant traffic, which not only costs the economy time but money. People are in their cars when they should be at work. That goes for lorry drivers as well as people on their way to other jobs. Congestion costs money and people should not forget that fact when calculating the opportunity cost of relying entirely on road infrastructure for the transportation of commercial goods.

Then there is the emissions issue. People have spoken about our commitments under Kyoto and at a European level. Let us be clear that our commitment is that between the years 2008-12 we have to limit our emissions increase to 13% above the base year which is 1990. We are close to 30% above that limit at present. In effect, we need to dramatically reduce emissions in the next three to five years. The first thing we can do is look at the main contributing factors to the increase. Emissions from the transport sector since 1990 have increased by 160%, more than double the increase in any of the other sectors.

The other cost relates to a very basic measure which every county councillor in the country knows very well as it relates to road infrastructure and repairs, particularly for heavy vehicles which do the damage of many dozens of smaller cars every time they transport bulk goods. For all of these reasons we need to find ways of continuing to facilitate growth in terms of transporting goods, growing an economy and allowing people to move around, while at the same time trying to reduce the cost and burden on our roads.

I shall return briefly to the emissions argument. Essentially, four areas contribute to growth in terms of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. These are the energy and industry sectors, agriculture and transport. In energy we are finally starting to think about doing something new to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Industry will be forced in time, I hope, through carbon credits and other systems, to see financial incentives through reducing emissions. In agriculture the emission rates are coming down because stock rates are falling. In transport, the biggest contributing factor to increased greenhouse gas emissions, we must take hard decisions across a number of areas. Basically there is fuel, shortening journey times or finding alternatives to driving cars and lorries. There is also a shift from road to rail to be considered as part of the mix. We need to take a much more aggressive approach in the fuel sector by replacing existing carbon-based fuels with bio-fuels. While some pilot projects have been initiated, we are lagging behind the rest of Europe. We are not promoting bio-diesel, ethanol and the other bio-fuels which are available as substitutes for petrol and diesel in a proactive manner.

Some work has been done to decrease journey times and encourage more people to use public transport. There have been positive developments in the commuter rail networks. I welcome the forthcoming completion of the rail link between east Cork and Cork city. If we are to invest significantly in the rail network to move people around the country and get commuters off the roads, surely it makes sense to maximise the use of that network by using it to carry freight. It makes sense to take off the roads the bulky goods, the weight of which does the most damage to road surfaces. Some make the ridiculous and simplistic argument that if one is in favour of rail and public transport, one has to be against the construction of roads. It is a rubbish argument because one can be in favour of both. A similar point can be made as part of the debate on emissions — our strategy needs to be relevant to a series of areas. No single golden key represents the solution to our transport challenge.

The motion before the House suggests more imaginative and ambitious thinking is needed to shift the emphasis in the transport of bulk freight from the road to the rail network. The levels of traffic on the roads are increasing quickly, whereas the use of the rail network is declining. The previous speaker pointed out that the British authorities were supporting the development of the rail sector. Britain is not that different from Ireland in terms of size and scale. We need to be far more ambitious. The argument that it costs a company more to move freight by rail than by road is simplistic. It is more expensive in this country because journey times are not as long as they are elsewhere and goods have to be loaded and unloaded after less time. If the Government thinks imaginatively, it can put incentives in place to encourage people to use the rail network for the transport of freight. This country's road infrastructure would benefit from significant cost savings in such circumstances. Such an approach would help to reduce the emissions associated with traffic, etc. Therefore, the cost of incentivising the increased use of rail freight transportation could be more than justified.

See this speech in context