Last night I said the Opposition were now getting somewhat excited about the situation in relation to this railway line and I was pointing out to them that they were the people who produced section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, that gave the board of CIE the power to terminate services of railways without recourse to this House. The Minister has clearly stated that there will be no closure of this line. I am concerned at the fact that there is this propaganda emanating from the Opposition benches.
Private Members' Business. - Rosslare/Limerick Rail Service: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Barrett on Tuesday, 22nd February, 1977:
That Dáil Éireann, believing that for economic and social reasons the Rosslare/Limerick Junction railway service should not be discontinued, calls on the Government to ensure that the service on this line is retained.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"recognises that under Section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, the Board of CIE are empowered to terminate any train service provided the Board are satisfied that the service is uneconomic and that there is no prospect of its continued operation being economic within a reasonable period; and takes note of the Minister for Transport and Power's recent public statement in relation to the future of services on the Rosslare/Limerick Junction railway line".
—(Minister for Transport and Power).
Did the Deputy say the Minister stated that there would be no closure of this railway line, full stop? I do not recall him saying that.
I will give the Deputy the Minister's statement if he wishes.
This is a limited debate and interruptions must cease.
Deputy Browne referred to a letter of 8th February, 1977 which he had received from the CIE Area Manager. The Minister asked him to read the last sentence but he refused to do so.
The letter was dated 10th December, 1976.
Cavan): The Deputy quoted two letters, including that referred to by Deputy Esmonde, and he deliberately omitted the last sentence.
What I quoted was a letter from the CIE Area Manager, Waterford, dated 10th December, 1976.
For the assistance of the House, I will start to quote, from the records of the House, Deputy Browne's words yesterday, and I will complete the quotation from the letter which he did not complete. It is dated 8th February, 1977 from the Area Manager of CIE. It states:
Dear Deputy,
I refer to your letter of 22nd January concerning the Rosslare/ Waterford rail service. You will recall that in my letter of 10th December, 1976, I said that the Board had decided to defer, for a reasonable period of time, the fixing of a date for the closure by the conversion of the viaduct to a road toll bridge, and the implications of the proposed road network on both sides of the bridge were being considered.
That part of the letter was quoted by the Deputy, but the letter goes on:
A final decision on the closure must await the outcome of the above consideration.
Now we have got the record right. We have got the full contents of the letter.
Would the Deputy quote in full the letter of 10th December?
Deputy Esmonde must be allowed to make his speech in his own fashion.
Did the Area Manager provide him with the letter?
He did not.
Of course the Minister did.
(Cavan): It was a mean little effort to leave out the last line.
I could never be as mean as the Minister has been in misleading the people of Wexford and Waterford. I will not take that from any Minister or any Member of the House. I have been here for 20 years and I never displayed the meanness of the Minister.
I think it would be worth my while to put on the record the relevant section of the 1958 Transport Act which was introduced by the late Seán Lemass. Section 19 is as follows:
(1) The Board may, subject to the provisions of this section, terminate any service of trains for passengers and merchandise or either of them.
(2) The Board shall not terminate a service unless it is satisfied that its operation is uneconomic and that there is no prospect of its continued operation being economic within a reasonable period.
(3) The Board shall not terminate a service or close a railway station to any or all classes of traffic unless, at least two months before doing so, the Board has published, in Iris Oifigiúil and in such newspapers circulating in the area affected by the proposal as the Board thinks proper, notice of its intention to do so.
(4) The notice shall indicate the new or additional road transport services, if any, which the Board proposes to provide in the area.
(5) If the Board does not propose to provide an alternative road transport service the notice shall state that applications for passenger licences under the Road Transport Act, 1932, or merchandise licences under the Road Transport Act, 1933, or both, as may be appropriate, may be made by persons desiring to provide alternative road services.
(6) Where the Board does not propose to provide alternative road services the Board shall make available at some railway station in the affected area to persons interested in the provision of alternative road services particulars of the traffic carried by the train service which it is proposed to terminate, or despatched from or received at the station which it is proposed to close as aforesaid, during the period of the latest twelve months for which such particulars are available. The notice shall indicate that such particulars will be made available at some specified station.
I personally cannot see this line being closed in view of the fact that we are looking to an expansion period at Rosslare Harbour, a very important terminal, the gateway to Europe from which there should be greatly increased traffic. While speaking of it I should like to raise one more point, more for the benefit of CIE than this House.
The section I have quoted refers to the economic viability of the rail services being provided. From what we have seen in the figures of CIE's performance over the years, one wonders if there is a single inch of any railway economically viable, if one judges the matter from a plus or minus viewpoint. This must be looked at by CIE as being part of a whole network and it is not possible to arrive at a simple judgment and to say that the Rosslare/Waterford line is not economic. It is probably a great deal more economic than any other line. In making that judgment CIE must consider a lot of matters— the physical viability and alternatives. The fact is, if they were making a judgment now, they would be making a wrong judgment. Certainly they would be making a judgment which would be opposed by me, by other public representatives and by the people generally in Wexford. Should they decide to take steps to close this railway they would be taking a decision without having a complete picture. To date, no one has been given any proper financial accounts that I am aware of in regard to the working of this railway or any part of it. It is ridiculous for people to go around saying that it has now been decided to close this railway because I do not think CIE can in law make a decision or a judgment that this line is not economic.
There is another serious legal point. The question is whether the section gives CIE power to remove a railway. The Minister has expressed himself strongly on this matter in contra-distinction to his predecessors who let things go by default and allowed complete lines to be removed. One can have a very viable railway one day not necessarily viable the next day but viable again the day after that. This is a very vital link in the development of the south-east. It links the south-east with other large centres of population.
I would like to ask Córas Iompair Éireann how far have they themselves contributed to a downturn in trade on the railway. I will instance here a very small station called Kilrane on this railway line. This station takes the beet crop from 240 acres of beet. In 1976 it took up 6,500 tons in 651 wagons. The extraordinary thing is that the wagons were not available throughout the entire day. They were available only during certain hours. Kilrane has a loading capacity for 15 wagons. The maximum provided by CIE was five or six wagons a day and these wagons were only available at 2.30 p.m. I cannot see how CIE can be judged a responsible body in regard to the running of this station if that is the service they provide. The farmers were there to deliver the beet but the wagons were not supplied. There is a rumour that this station may not be open next year. That will mean that every farmer will have to drive an extra 14 miles with every load and that will certainly add to the cost of beet growing in that area.
One might also question whether anybody has thought it worth-while approaching the people who are willing to avail of this service. Has there been any marketing survey? Has there been any effort to improve sales? Have CIE not contributed to their own difficulties by their failure to carry on in a business-like manner even over a limited period in regard to a particular but very important crop? We have been given the figures. That area served by Kilrane could grow twice as much beet if the farmers got the contracts and the proper transport service. There is a small increase in the beet acreage allotted this year. South Wexford is one of the most intensive beet-growing areas. It is an important entity in keeping the sugar factory going in Thurles. If CIE are going to come to this House every year and look for money to help them in their difficulties we, as public representatives, are entitled to ask questions. Are CIE doing their job the way they should be doing it?
Deputy Esmonde referred to the Transport Act, 1958. There was a good deal of beating about the bush last night and again this evening with regard to section 19 which gives autonomy to CIE. Every time a question is asked about CIE the Ceann Comhairle sends back a very nice letter saying the Minister has no function in the matter. CIE are an autonomous body. I have here a letter, dated 29th November 1976, from the South Eastern Railway Development Organisation:
Further to my letter of 27th July, 1976, I wish to inform you that the Minister for Transport and Power was requested to receive a deputation on the above matter. He informed our organisation, however, that as the question of future services on this line is a matter for determination by the board of CIE he considers that no useful purpose could be served by him receiving a deputation.
That was the Minister's predecessor and now John Esmonde gets up——
Deputy John Esmonde.
——Deputy John Esmonde, my colleague, and gives us a lecture about the 1958 Transport Act. I will leave it to my colleague, Michael O'Kennedy——
Deputy Michael O'Kennedy.
——Deputy Michael O'Kennedy to reply to Deputy Esmonde. What I would like to know is has the Minister now taken power on himself or are CIE still autonomous? I have numerous letters here in front of me and there is one further letter I would like to quote. I should like to quote from a letter from the office of the General Manager of CIE, John F. Higgins, to the South Eastern Regional Development Organisation:
When the Barrow Bridge is converted to road use which is scheduled for completion in a matter of months from the date of closure of the line, improved alternatives of substantial road services will be provided over the converted bridge as detailed in the timetable.
CIE have issued four pages of timetables in this connection. One wonders how successful has been the Minister's intervention in view of section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, which has been quoted in the debate. As far as I am concerned the Minister is indulging in a political gimmick. The people in Rosslare and New Ross do not accept what the Minister said in Thurles.
Deputy Esmonde did not quote the letter dated 10th December from Mr. O'Connor, Area Manager in Waterford. This was sent before the Minister went to Thurles. That letter stated in the last paragraph:
There is no commercial justification for the operation of services on this line, and the Board has decided to withdraw passenger and freight services from the Waterford/Rosslare section.
Who is the liar in this case?
(Cavan): The Deputy should read out all the letter. Bits of a letter read out of context can be misleading.
I have quoted the relevant paragraph.
Deputy Allen can read out all the letter if necessary. The Minister acts as though there were something else in the letter that repudiates that statement but there is not.
Deputy Allen should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
The letter was dated 10th December, 1976. We then have the Minister's speech in Thurles on 19th January, 1977. The second last paragraph stated:
No final decision has been taken to close down the Rosslare/Waterford line and no such decision will be taken until the problems which I have mentioned have been fully considered and until a satisfactory alternative method of transport in the area has been provided.
CIE have it here in black and white, four pages of alternative transport facilities. Who is telling lies now?
(Cavan): I suggest that the Deputy reads the letter of 10th December.
There are four pages of time-tables setting out alternative road passenger services for Rosslare Harbour/Limerick via New Ross, and for Limerick/Rosslare Harbour via New Ross and there are two additional pages. I should like to know who is being fooled. Rosslare Harbour is the nearest point to Europe and we are talking of an area in the country known as the sunny south east. Tourism, the farming community, working people, school children and people working with CIE will be affected.
This Government have been in office for nearly four years. During that time we have urged them to have further development works carried out in Rosslare Harbour but we have not succeeded. Tests were carried out at the behest of the Department of Transport and Power. It should not be forgotten that CIE have a commitment so far as Rosslare Harbour is concerned.
This motion deals with the closure of a railway line.
It affects Rosslare Harbour in that CIE have a commitment in that harbour. The people of the area wonder if CIE will get out of the area, at least so far as the future development of the harbour is concerned, if the line is closed. In 1975 the number of passengers through Rosslare Harbour was 377,161 and the number of cars was 8,289. We are looking for additional facilities in the harbour. CIE have a responsibility and if the rail line is closed the people of the area are afraid that the harbour will be closed.
There is no danger of that. It is expanding all the time.
The death notice has been signed and the Minister is trying to get out of his responsibilities in the matter. I should like to quote from a publication of the South-East Region Tourist Organisation. Under the heading "Acess to the region" it is stated:
The south-east region is very well served by internal and external transport. Internally the south-east region is easily accessible from the main centres of population in Ireland and Northern Ireland. The south-east region is very well served by public transport and this contributes largely to its popularity as a region for family holidays.
The Minister waffled on last night when he spoke in the debate——
(Cavan): I think the Deputy says a Hail Mary every night that it will be closed.
If the Minister wants to think that he is welcome. That is not the case. On the one hand the Minister has spoken about keeping the line open but, on the other hand, he has quoted section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, where CIE have autonomy. I want a straight answer. The Minister last night spoke of the number of lines closed when Fianna Fáil were in power——
(Cavan): 700 miles.
What is gone is gone but we want to hold on to what we have.
Harcourt Street station is also gone.
We want to hear from the Deputy in a few minutes. We want to know what he said in Tipperary.
Deputy Allen should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
I have no doubt that Deputy Ryan is interested in the future of the Thurles sugar factory. Irrespective of what the Minister says, I have no doubt that this line will be closed. The Minister is not fooling the beet growers of south Wexford. I was pleased to hear Deputy Esmonde speaking on behalf of the beet growers in the Kilrane area. They have been informed by CIE that the loading depot in Kilrane station is being closed in 1978. Thirty growers will be affected by the closure. I understand that a man is sent from the CIE depot in Rosslare Harbour to supervise the loading of beet at Kilrane. I should like the Minister to tell us whether or not this station is being closed. If it is closed it will put extra expense on the farmers in that area in that they will have to travel an extra 16 miles with their beet. I understand that the man who supervises the loading of the wagons is employed by CIE.
There are approximately 900 beet growers in the rest of south-east Wexford. If CIE cannot haul the beet from that area the farmers will stop growing it because it would not be economical to transport beet from south Wexford to Thurles. I should like to know where Deputy Ryan stands when it comes to voting. All you have to do is read what the Minister has on the Order Paper. The amendment reads:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following: "recognises that under Section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, the Board of CIE is empowered to terminate any train service provided the Board is satisfied that the service is uneconomic ..."
(Cavan): Fianna Fáil are determined to put half truths on the record. It is a poor performance.
In the first paragraph of his letter the general manager of CIE said that the result of studies indicated that the short-term marginal cost-saving resulting from the withdrawal of the service exceeded the anticipated loss of revenue by almost £133,000 per year. It is a poor reflection on CIE and a poorer one on the Minister who is trying to cod the people of south Wexford and Tipperary by saying that the line will remain open.
(Cavan): Time will tell who is codding who.
It is an election gimmick. Farmers are very intelligent nowadays and will not be fooled as easily as the Minister might think. Our county council has received an application from an independent body for planning permission to convert the Barrow bridge. Permission has been refused for many reasons. One reason is the infrastructure of the road in the area. Another reason is that, if the rail link is closed to beet haulage, it would be reasonable to assume that the resultant road traffic would use several roads and the cost of bringing these roads up to standard is estimated at £750,000.
(Cavan): Does that not satisfy the Deputy when taken in conjunction with the letter of 10th December which he did not read?
That would be the responsibility of Wexford County Council. I could say why we refused planning permission for the changing of this bridge but I will not. I am convinced that this rail line will be closed. I am worried about the tourist industry, Rosslare Harbour, the farming community, the school-going population and the workers.
I should like to compliment the Minister on his statement of 19th January and to welcome his intervention in this important matter. I listened last night and tonight to several speakers——
The Deputy was not in the House last night.
Last night it was said that the Minister did not go far enough in regard to the future of the Rosslare/Waterford line. I have experience of working with CIE for 25 years, and I can recollect stations and important branch lines being closed. Some of these decisions are being rued today by business people. Not alone were they closed but during the Opposition regime station houses and railway lines were sold, sleepers were sold, in fact the very ground the track was on was sold. Listening to such statements from the Opposition benches makes one wonder how many memories have been lost over there.
It was stated here last night that the Minister's journey to Thurles to make this statement was a political manoeuvre to ensure that the Government would hold the marginal seat in north Tipperary, which incidentally is my seat. It is a pity the speaker did not do a little more investigation into the reasons for the Minister's visit to Thurles. When this matter first came to light last September all sections of the workers in the beet factory in Thurles came together and, seeing that their industry was in jeopardy, they decided to form an action committee. I was at two of their meetings and I complimented them on their activity and their intervention in this matter. It proves one thing to me that the legislation introduced by the Minister for Labour some weeks ago on worker participation in the semi-State bodies brought about a welcome change. This group of workers started a campaign to ensure that the Rosslare/Waterford line would not be closed and that therefore the Thurles beet factory would continue to prosper. It was at their behest that the Minister came to Thurles. They invited him there and, unlike former Ministers in former Governments who spoke from Dublin, I compliment the Minister for Transport and Power for coming down among us, talking to the workers and listening to their grievances. I say to the Opposition benches: do not worry about the marginal seat. I will worry about that.
It is the beet factory I am worried about.
There will be no short cut to Dáil Éireann the next time. As Deputy Allen said, the people are intelligent. They know what is going on.
And they will not let the Minister fool them.
And rather than the Minister's visit to Thurles being a political manoeuvre, I believe the re-introduction of this Private Members' Motion into this House was a political manoeuvre. Perhaps some Members on the Opposition benches did not take enough interest in the cause at the beginning and felt their forces were suffering, and they now want to regroup.
On the 3rd of this month I looked at a television programme specially presented in connection with this controversy. The chairman of CIE spoke on the programme and I agree there does seem to be a contradiction between what the chairman of CIE said and the Minister's statement on 19th January.
Hear, hear.
I believe that, under section 19, the board of CIE have too much independence, and the provisions should be altered to ensure that on important decisions such as the proposed closure of this section of the line the Minister should be consulted before any decision is taken.
That is exactly what we are asking.
Deputy John Ryan should be allowed to make his own contribution.
That is exactly what we are asking.
When I sit down I will not interrupt anyone else. Perhaps with a little manners we could continue this debate.
The Deputy interrupted me.
CIE have always had and will continue to have a major role in the development of the social and economic life of the country. I believe such a step as was intended by CIE would have been to the detriment of the south-east and also the north Tipperary part of the mid-western region. CIE, Bord Fáilte and the IDA are there for the betterment of our people and must be seen to be working to ensure that their way of life will be improved. Therefore the Minister will have to clarify the situation with the chairman of CIE. We must know that the Minister's word is final and that such statements as that made by the chairman of CIE on 3rd February do not stand up.
I appreciate what Rosslare means to the south of Ireland. It is a gateway from England, France and the rest of Europe. It has contributed substantially to the development of tourism in the south, the mid-west and the west of Ireland. This line also conveys 40 per cent of the beet for the Thurles beet factory, and this in itself is a major contributing factor to the viability of the Thurles factory. CIE stated that for economic reasons this line would now be closed. One has to bear in mind that the £135,000 loss involved amounts to approximately one-half per cent of the total subvention to CIE of £32 million, and also think of the £6 million losses on the Dublin city services and, in latter days, this fantastic plan for spending £150 million on the proposed underground system in the city of Dublin, which makes one wonder if CIE are more concerned with Dublin than with the rest of the country.
To take this a step further, I would like to do a cost analysis in respect of the alternative service to prove how frighteningly expensive this substitute service would be. At the meetings I attended in Thurles it was clearly indicated that a fleet of approximately 100 articulated units would be needed to convey by road the beet which normally travels by rail from the south Wexford region.
We would not grow it.
This fleet would cost an additional £2 million and would contribute to the chaotic conditions of road traffic in the north Tipperary and Thurles areas.
We would build our own beet factory.
The first stage of the road development scheme that would be needed initially to cater for this extra road traffic in Kilkenny and Wexford would cost another £2 million.
The Deputy is wrong.
As Deputy Allen has already pointed out, the extra cost to the growers would be in the region of £250,000, approximately £1.50 per ton for the road merchandise service in lieu of rail. I agree with Deputy Allen that this would be a disincentive to the Wexford Beet Growers Association. Not alone would it be a big blow to the Thurles factory but it would be a serious blow to the national sugar industry because, as was made very clear to me at the meetings I attended, south Wexford is ideally placed for the growing of first-class beet. If the alternative service proves less satisfactory than the one in existence at the moment I can see the situation arising that the Wexford farmers will not grow the beet, and I am concerned about that as well.
My basic worry is the sugar factory in Thurles. This industry has been in existence in my constituency for about 40 years. To the credit of the executive and workers down through the years, it has established itself as one of the outstanding industries in the country. It depends for 40 per cent of its production on the beet from south Wexford. The Thurles industry provides 300 permanent and, at peak, 600 jobs between CIE and CSÉ Teoranta and contributes a total of about £750,000 to the commercial life of Thurles and the surrounding area. We have many industries, some big, some small, in North Tipperary but we are very fortunate in having three major industries based on natural resources. There is the sugar factory at Thurles, a meat processing factory at Roscrea and mining operations at Nenagh. Our only concern in regard to these industries is in respect of Nenagh because that is a wasting industry. Consequently, we must think of the day when we shall have to fill the vacuum that will be created by the exhaustion of the mine. At no time has there been any doubt about either of the industries at Thurles or Roscrea. We have never anticipated their being interfered with or their viability being lessened.
The closure of any one of these three major industries would result in the need for a colossal amount of finance by way of subvention for the purpose of job creation in that area. I am thinking in terms of up to £4 million.
I wish to make it clear that at no time, whether it be before or after the next election, would I be prepared to support any move here to close this branch line.
Therefore, the Deputy will be voting with us.
I should like to clarify the facts and then to identify the areas in which certain responsibility lies. Although my time is limited, I do not mind quoting from all the letters concerned. The question that needs to be clarified first is whether CIE have made a decision to close the line. I think the Minister will agree that CIE had taken a decision to close this line.
(Cavan): It was a conditional decision.
I will refer the Minister to the Act and to what he was implying was a condition precedent to a decision. This is the difference: the references the Minister made were to a condition precedent to the implementation of a decision.
There is a condition.
I am prepared to discuss this matter precisely, having regard to the legal position involved. The Minister has been implying that no final decision was taken but it is clear that what has not been decided is the date or the time at which this service is to be terminated. Undoubtedly, as is clear from all the correspondence, a decision had been taken to close the line. This is clear, too, from the records of the board of CIE.
The Deputy has been told there is a condition.
Deputy O'Kennedy.
I shall be tempted to sit down if Deputy Coughlan continues like this.
The Deputy is talking nonsense.
Deputy Coughlan merely wants to indulge in this sort of waffle. This is the line he takes when the argument becomes too strong for him but he will not succeed on this occasion.
This is nonsense.
Deputy O'Kennedy must be allowed continue.
I shall confine myself to the facts.
(Cavan): I am prepared to accept the letter from Mr. O'Connor of the 10th December, 1976, if it is read in full and in conjunction with my statement and the refusal of Wexford County Council to grant planning permission.
That came later.
Let us hear Deputy O'Kennedy.
That came after the Minister's visit to Thurles.
(Cavan): It is referred to in the letter.
I will read the second paragraph of the letter.
(Cavan): I should prefer the Deputy to read all of the letter.
There is not time for that. The only part that is relevant is the second paragraph which reads:
It was clear from the facts that continued operation of the Waterford/ Rosslare link will incur increasing losses. There is no commercial justification for the operation of services on this line and the Board have decided to withdraw passenger and freight services from the Waterford/Rosslare section. However, in view of the inconvenience which would be caused to those commuter passengers who use the service, it was decided to defer, for a reasonable period of time, the fixing of a date for the closure to enable Wexford and Kilkenny County Councils further opportunity of considering the use of the converted bridge as a road toll bridge, together with the implications of the proposed closure for the road network on both sides of the bridge.
Therefore, the only thing that it was decided to defer was the fixing of a date for the closure.
(Cavan): Until the viaduct had been converted into a toll bridge but it could only be converted with the consent of Wexford County Council and they have refused permission.
The point is that the Minister said in Thurles that no final decision had been taken. So far as the board of CIE are concerned they took the decision to close the line, the decision to be effected would have to be subject to certain conditions that are laid down in the Act.
To confirm what I am saying I wish to quote from the unrevised version of what the Minister said last night:
I have put on the record of this House the immense difficulties that are in the way of closing down this line and I am saying now that the line will not be closed down until these difficulties have been resolved.
It is clear from that that the Minister is acknowledging that the decision to close has been taken, that he is saying that the closure will not be effected until what he refers to as "those immense difficulties" will be overcome. Therefore, let us have some accuracy.
(Cavan): Deputy Browne was told that on 10th December, 1976, so what is all the fuss about.
I presume that the records of CIE which, a committee of this House might be able to have access to at some time, will show that on a date in November, or earlier, the board made a decision to terminate this service. Presumably the Minister accepts that.
(Cavan): I do not. I say that a decision was not to be enforced until——
Rubbish. We shall have to send for papers and put them on the record. The fact is that a decision had been taken but that in order for it to become effective it had to satisfy the conditions of the Act. We are wondering why the Minister went to Thurles. He thanked The Tipperary Star and complimented them for their accurate reporting but let us look at the heading of their article. It reads: “Minister's Reprieve for Waterford-Rosslare Rail Link”.
(Cavan): That seems to have annoyed the Deputy intensely.
What the public are conditioned to believe is the information presented to them in their newspapers. That is what the public of north Tipperary were expected to believe from the Minister's traumatic intervention, not at the request of the action committee but at the request of the Fine Gael branch in Thurles.
(Cavan): It was a magnificent meeting. I was proud of it.
I make no comment on that. Our motion is absolutely vital. The Minister in his amendment asks us to note his statement and take note of the powers of CIE under section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958. I would also refer to section 7 of that Act to put the whole thing in perspective. It says:
It shall be the general duty of the Board to provide reasonable, efficient and economical transport services with due regard to safety of operation, the encouragement of national economic development and the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment for its employees.
There is no discretion given here, it is an obligation that CIE have due regard to the encouragement of national economic development. That should be taken into account as well as section 19. Who is to ensure that CIE will discharge their obligations under this Act? The Government are responsible if they do not discharge their duties in the first instance. It is not only CIE who are involved in this decision, the Thurles sugar factory, the beet growers of Wexford, Rosslare Harbour and almost every other interest in the area will be affected by this decision. The Minister for Agriculture is involved; the Minister for Finance is involved because he has quite substantial shareholdings in the sugar factory; the Minister for Transport and Power, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Minister for Labour are also involved. Are we to uphold in this House that one body such as CIE can take a decision under their terms of reference without taking the whole matter into account for the sake of saving £130,000, which will very seriously damage other State bodies, in this instance Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann. Are we coming to the mad state where one State body under one Minister can take a decision and be allowed to go through with that decision simply to protect their own position when the consequences of their decision will seriously undermine another industry with all the other social and economic consequences?
(Cavan): I said in Thurles that no such decision had been taken.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Kennedy without interruption.
I did not interrupt the Minister. The Minister is not able to face facts.
(Cavan): The Deputy is confused.
Deputies should address their remarks through the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Coughlan's function is to prevent real argument from being pursued.
The Deputy should take his beating.
Deputy O'Kennedy, please.
It is very obvious that the implications of this decision by CIE some months ago has far-reaching consequences and it brings in other Government Ministers—the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Labour. In those circumstances it is undoubtedly obvious that the Government are up to their tonsils in this issue. I did not organise the meeting in Thurles, whatever the Minister might think. The Minister was more involved in promoting publicity for it than I was. Those people called on the Taoiseach and the Government to intervene to ensure that this line would not close down, and we on this side of the House are giving effect to that call. The Government can take a decision to supplement their subvention to CIE by £130,000, to protect the beet-growing industry of south Wexford, and the jobs of the people in Thurles. CIE cannot refuse to accept the £130,000 if offered, because under the terms of this Act they must have regard to the encouragement of national economic development. It has been accepted that 40 per cent of the beet of Thurles comes from south Wexford. The total employment capacity in Thurles, in terms of the sugar factory only, is about 650 jobs. At least 200 jobs are at hazard here if this rail link is not maintained.
(Cavan): It will be maintained.
If the CIE decision is implemented.
(Cavan): The Deputy knows that it was a conditional decision.
Is there any procedure in this House for getting a copy of the minute of the CIE decision in order to get this quite clear, because no one else said it was a conditional decision. It was a decision which could not be implemented without statutory legislation. CIE made a decision and the Minister should accept that. The chief executive has accepted that, Deputy Ryan and Deputy Esmonde have accepted it, and the Minister is the only person who is literally brazening it out here. The Minister is trying to twist realities. We want to make sure the Government step in and see that the decision taken by CIE will now be rendered void by virtue of the Government, under the Minister for Finance, providing a subsidy of £130,000. That money would be well spent, because 200 jobs are at hazard and it would cost a substantial amount of money to create 200 new jobs. This industry was established in Thurles under Fianna Fáil.
(Cavan): It may have been established by Fianna Fáil after we established sugar factories which were referred to as white elephants by Fianna Fáil. The ESB was also christened as a white elephant by Fianna Fáil.
The rough standard of grant aid for setting up new industries is in the order of about £5,000 per job, that would mean that to create new jobs in Thurles for 200 people would cost £1 million at the minimum. That is a conservative estimate. The annual interest rate on £1 million at about 13 per cent, which is not an exorbitant rate nowadays, gives a figure of £130,000 per annum, which happens to be the loss that CIE say they are suffering on this line.
So there is a line-ball position with £130,000 interest to provide for £1 million jobs and £130,000 loss on the line, but there is much more. The Minister has acknowledged that to change the road structure, to build a new bridge, to do all that is required would cost £4½ million or £5 million. We are talking about huge expenditure. We are left in the position that, if the Government do not act effectively and if the CIE decision is to be implemented as it has been taken, subject to the Act, we will be throwing away millions of pounds simply to ensure that CIE would not lose an extra £130,000 or maybe £150,000 next year. We will be undermining a very basic industry with all the traditional social and economic strength of that industry in Tipperary and Wexford and we will also be bringing on to our roads between Wexford and Thurles juggernauts and heavy trucks that the roads are not capable of holding and creating hazards that we are all trying to avoid.
If there is any sense left then the Government must step in. I am not criticising CIE. They work within certain terms of reference to keep the subvention down and to cut the losses. They say, in effect, to the Minister "The losses are £130,000 on this line and therefore we are not going to subsidise this. It is not fair to ask us to subsidise the Sugar Company." If that is so it is fair to ask the Government to subsidise CIE to subsidise the Sugar Company so that this industry and these jobs can be maintained and there would be a guarantee that the Government would not have to spend millions more as a consequence of a decision, taken by CIE in their own justifiable but narrow interests, which would have very serious consequences for everyone else. That is what our motion is about. We believe that for economic and social reasons the Rosslare/Limerick Junction railway service should not be discontinued.
(Cavan): And it will not be.
We call on the Government to ensure that the service on the line is retained, but the Minister simply recognises that under section 19 of the Act that the board is empowered to terminate.
(Cavan): The Deputy cannot even read the last sentence.
I will read the whole lot. If anyone is to be guilty of selective quotation the Minister qualifies for the prize.
(Cavan): I quoted everything in it.
Section 19 says:
(i) The Board may, subject to the provisions of this section, terminate any service of trains for passengers and merchandise or either of them
The board have a discretion. Section 7, to which I referred earlier, imposes an obligation on them to take account of the encouragement of national economic development. In this other area they have not an unfettered power, but a discretion. Having regard to the responsibility they have under the Minister for Transport and Power it is no more than consultation. Surely that Minister as the agent of his Government can give effect to that Government decision. We are asking for not just a casual explanation. The impression which the Minister gave, though perhaps not intentionally, that no decision was taken when he went down to Thurles was misleading. Everyone knows that a decision has been taken. We want to put the record straight and let CIE, the public and everyone else know that our motion calls for the Government to act on the obligation they have.
The Act of 1958 which the Minister refers to is also the Act which provides very significant compensation for the employees of CIE in the event of certain lines closing or certain persons' services being no longer required. I recall some of those compensation cases coming before our courts as a result of closures and the general opinion of the people at the time was that the compensation was generous but——
(Cavan): I do not think it was large compensation.
——what compensation will there be for the beet growers of Wexford and business people of Thurles? There is no statutory provision for them if CIE can go ahead with this decision. That Act had a lot more to it than section 19 which the Minister referred to. We are concerned about justice all round and we do not want to see a position of compensation for the Wexford beet-growers or Thurles workers. We want them to be allowed to continue in their employment and business. That can be achieved only if the Government, through this Minister, make available to CIE the necessary subvention, if such it is, to provide for this. Then we can dispose of this question of the Barrow Bridge. The Minister will not have to rely on whether or not Wexford County Council give planning permission.
(Cavan): The Deputy is becoming more absurd. Planning permission has been refused.
The Minister did not refer to it.
(Cavan): I did.
After the Minister went to Thurles planning permission was refused.
(Cavan): I did say planning permission was refused.
The conditions are clear enough. Notices must be published, other services provided and so on. We can dispense with all of that now under the conditions of this Act. Only one man can do it on behalf of the Government and that is the Minister sitting in this House.
(Cavan): There is nothing to be done.
If CIE are provided with the necessary subvention they can reverse their decision for the sake of £130,000, and that is what is being debated here.
I want to deal with some other matters. As it happens, notice to the members of Wexford County Council from their county manager of his intention to refuse planning permission was dated 14th February, 1977. I do not know if the Minister is suggesting that he knew what was happening.
Nobody is going to tell me as a member of Wexford County Council that the Minister influenced the county manager.
(Cavan): I did not.
The Minister went to Thurles on 19th January.
(Cavan): I said the road would not be closed unless Wexford County Council gave permission and they did not.
There is still an appeal and the Government can still wash their hands. The appeal might come before the new Appeals Tribunal and if they grant the permission for the conversion of the bridge then that condition is satisfied and the Minister will have to acknowledge that he cannot interfere with them. At least the Minister for Local Government tells us that, despite the fact that he may have a very close friend on that planning tribunal, he cannot interfere with them.
(Cavan): The Deputy is attacking the Judiciary.
It is some day if the secretary of a Labour Branch can be qualified as a member of the Judiciary.
Deputies should keep to the motion.
I am questioning the qualifications and the capacity of some people appointed to that board.
Deputies should keep to the motion.
Jobs for the boys.
Certainly jobs for the boys at the unprecedented rate of £8,600.
(Cavan): I want to hear the Deputy screaming.
It is clear that the decision has been taken. There is only one way of correcting it and that is for the Government to come along and give CIE what they need, the subvention, and then all the other conditions which have to be satisfied under that Act do not come into play. That is what the people of Thurles and the Wexford beet-growers want.
(Cavan): The people of Thurles are quite at ease since 20th January.
Does the Minister think they would be quite at ease if they heard what he said last night: "I have put on the record of this House the immense difficulties that are in the way of closing down this line and I am saying now that the line will not be closed down until these difficulties have been resolved"?
(Cavan): I said that.
That is tantamount to saying the line will be closed when they are resolved.
(Cavan): Not at all.
It is the same thing.
(Cavan): The Deputy is hard pushed for an argument.
"The line will not be closed down until these difficulties have been resolved." That is simple enough English to me.
(Cavan): That is what I said in Thurles.
It is what the Minister said here last night. It is on the record of the House. The Minister is being less than precise. He will find he did not use that expression in Thurles.
(Cavan): It is also what I said in Thurles.
Those very words were not used in Thurles.
(Cavan): It is obvious that it cannot and will not be closed down for some considerable time, if at all, and certainly not until a suitable alternative transport service is provided.
The Chair will note that the Minister is using my time.
Deputy O'Kennedy without interruption.
The words I have quoted were not used in Thurles. They were used here last night, and after the Minister came back from Thurles.
(Cavan): They are exactly the same.
They are not. The record will show what the Minister said. Let us leave it at that. The people of Thurles are concerned because there is not a clear commitment by the Minister on behalf of the Government that this decision by CIE will not be implemented. The people of Wexford are concerned. Quite a lot of concern was expressed to us and that is why we put down this motion. It does not make any sense that, for the sake of £130,000 which is all that is involved out of a subvention of £32 million or £33 million which the Government are providing, this decision has been taken. That is the issue.
Let me distinguish between this issue and the issue in other cases. When lines were closed before this had serious consequences for the people in the area, whether it was Claremorris or Donegal. That must be acknowledged. It had serious effects on their style of living and serious consequences on traffic to and from both areas. But none of those decisions had a direct detrimental effect on another State body. There is the real crux in this case. If the CIE decision is implemented there will be a direct detrimental effect on another State body. That cannot be tolerated. Otherwise, as I said in Thurles, we in this House are a nonsense; we have no responsibility; the Government are a nonsense. If any State company take a decision which will affect the welfare of another, who is to stop them? Surely it is the Members of this House who pass legislation requiring State bodies to take account of national economic development.
I want to refer to a statement made by the Minister for Finance. The House will recall that concern had been expressed about the accountability of State bodies to the House and to the Government. A new committee was set up to examine the performance and the accounts of these bodies. Ironically, but not surprisingly, two of the bodies listed are CIE and Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann. I want to quote some statements the Minister made about State bodies when he was introducing that committee. As reported at column 1405 of the Official Report of 10th November, 1976, the Minister said:
Once established each body has tended to operate independent of its parliamentary creator while Members of the Oireachtas and the public were alternatively infuriated by or apathetic about its activities. This unhealthy situation has brought about the realisation that the effectiveness and acceptance of these bodies as efficient national agencies required a more formal relationship to the Oireachtas.
That is the Parliament of the people. Our party insist that no State body can take a decision which will affect people in other employment without being answerable to the Oireachtas. The Minister for Finance, who is providing the extra £130,000 has acknowledged that at column 1405. As reported at column 1408 of the same Volume the Minister said:
The examination required may also involve oral presentations and senior officers of a State-sponsored body being reviewed and, possibly, senior civil servants from Departments should attend before the Joint Committee.
The whole purpose was that this Parliament and the Government chosen by Parliament would be able to ensure that no State body can operate independently irrespective of the consequences to any other sector. That is what the Minister for Finance was about. As reported at column 1411 of the same volume he said:
The Minister responsible for any particular company ...
I presume that would be the Minister for Transport and Power in relation to CIE—
... is responsible for the overall policy of the company and answerable therefore to the Dáil and the Seanad for that policy.
That is what we are doing here. At the moment we have no way of getting inside the boardroom of CIE, but we have a way of making the responsible Minister answerable to us and the electorate in Wexford, or Tipperary, or wherever else. That is what we are doing here this evening. If the Minister does not accept our motion, in effect he is saying the question of responsibility, about which the Minister for Finance spoke so eloquently in introducing the Joint Committee, is a nonsense, all a facade, all a lot of wind, and we will have to sit back and acknowledge that decisions taken by each board of each State body when taken must be lived with, subject to the fact that it may take some time to implement them or there may be problems about planning permission. That is not good enough. We are on hazard and rightly so. We are answerable to the public who elect us. We will have to face the sanction and rightly so. Because we have to face the sanction we have that responsibility and that authority unlike the State companies. We have to give effect to the wishes of the people who elected us. That is what our motion asks for.
I know it would be difficult for any Minister to accept the terms of a motion of this sort because it would seem that one side is vindicated rather than the other. If the Minister is prepared to accept that, perhaps he will acknowledge that this motion was not put down to stir up the pot.
(Cavan): I am more convinced than ever.
Deputy Ryan has acknowledged that he was much more involved in the pot stirring than I was.
(Cavan): That was before I went to Thurles.
We want to vindicate the responsibility of this House, the right and authority of this House and ensure that the Government will carry out their responsibility particularly when two separate State companies are involved, one taking a decision which will affect the other to the detriment of another. Anyone who cannot see the issues as we are presenting them is ignoring our responsibility and the Government's responsibility. It will be a sad day for CIE, for Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann, for the beetgrowers, and a sadder day for this House, if the Government do not recognise what is involved and accept our motion.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Thornley, David.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin Central)
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá. Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24th February, 1977.