Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)

I draw the House's attention to two amendments on Dáil Report Stage, in response to concerns raised on Committee Stage, to address the issue of balance between commercial and safety considerations. Those amendments led to the present text of sections 77(5) and 78(6), which require that a court take account of the duty of care placed on a railway undertaking under section 36.

We should acknowledge that we have quite a good safety record. Railways and other industries have developed well-established techniques for assessing what is a tolerable level of risk in accordance with societal expectations. The balance struck is that the risk must be maintained at as low a level as reasonably practicable, the internationally accepted norm.

Perhaps I might respond to Senator Paddy Burke regarding the points raised. Section 36 places a duty on the railway undertaking to ensure the safety of persons in the operation of its railway as far as is reasonably practicable. Ultimately, it will be a matter for a judge or jury to decide what it is reasonable to expect a railway undertaking to do in a practical circumstance to ensure safety.

Unfortunately, no one can give an absolute guarantee of safety in anything that we do. As a society, we daily decide what constitutes a reasonable risk. We accept that some risk is inevitable in life, and there tends to be wide consciousness of what level is intolerable. A judge and jury are the ultimate arbiters of what we as a society consider an acceptable risk. One could say that section 36 requires a railway undertaking to manage risk in accordance with societal expectations. We must try to ensure that we are satisfied. It is a matter for this House to decide whether the Bill strikes the right balance in what is deemed to be the most reasonable approach to the issue. I hope the points I raised in respect of sections 6, 36, 77 and 78, and section 5 in particular, are somewhat helpful to the House.