Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Dec 1976

Vol. 295 No. 3

Vote 43: Transport and Power.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Cavan): I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £133,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1976, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Transport and Power, including certain services administered by that Office and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.

The subvention provided for CIE in the 1976 Estimates was £28 million, and it is now estimated that this provision will be inadequate to the extent of £3.9 million to meet CIE's net deficit in the current financial year.

The main reason for the increase in the board's losses is the 1976 interim wage agreement which will cost CIE an additional £2.4 million in respect of subventible activities in 1976. The balance of the excess is due largely to a reduction in railway traffic. There has been a serious decline in rail passenger traffice due to the general economic recession combined with customer resistance to the fares increases introduced in March, 1976. The economic recession is also responsible for a substantial decrease in rail freight carryings.

The total short-fall in CIE's anticipated revenue for 1976 amounts to £2 million approximately and, in addition, there have been increases totalling about £500,000 in social insurance costs and fuel costs. The effects of the increased costs and the short-fall in revenue have however been partially offset by increases in productivity.

The provision of £3.9 million in the Supplementary Estimate will bring CIE's total subvention for 1976 to £31.9 million, i.e., an increase of £5.4 million on the provision for 1975. The sum of £31.9 million includes approximately £24.18 million for railway operations, £6.09 million for Dublin City bus services and £1.26 million for provincial bus services. The balance is for the canals and Galway/Aran ferry services. No subvention is provided for the board's road freight services, which must be operated on a commercial basis.

The increasing deficits on CIE's operations are a continuing cause for grave concern. I am aware that the board of CIE share this concern and are making a determined effort to arrest the escalating deficits through the implementation of productivity and cost reduction schemes. It is essential that these efforts be continued, and I will be impressing on the board the need to pursue vigorously all practicable measures to improve efficiency and to secure economies in operation.

The total amount of the increased expenditure is £3.9 million but there is an offset of £3.767 million in saving made up of £2.387 million on other subheads and a surplus of £1.380 million from Appropriations-in-Aid. Accordingly the net amount required is £133,000.

I recommend the Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Mr. Barrett

As the Minister has said, the main reason for the Supplementary Estimate is the financial state of CIE. Every year we come in and vote ever increasing subsidies for CIE and we have supported the present Government in these votes. It seems this will go on and on despite whatever reductions CIE are attempting to enforce. I appreciate that the Minister has been only seven days in his new office and that he would not have had time to look into the affairs of all the semi-State bodies with which he has to deal. I think there are 12 such bodies but, of course, some are more important than others as far as the national economy is concerned, and CIE have special importance.

I should like to ask the Minister to examine in a complete fashion the activities of CIE not only from the point of view of the economic structure involved but also the social structure —the social contribution CIE are obliged to make to this country. Nowhere in the world is there a railway system which is anyway near to paying its way. Even in a country like West Germany, where there is a large amount of through traffic to other countries, they are losing heavily, and proportionately speaking they are losing more heavily than we are.

It appears to many people that CIE have set a definite course in curtailing services all over the country. We have had the instance of the passenger line from Limerick to Claremorris which was debated at length in this House. CIE went ahead and discontinued that service and the Minister's predecessor told us that it was a matter for the board of CIE. I do not think that these decisions can be left to the board of CIE if we are to concern ourselves about the public good. A number of parcel delivery services in the West of Ireland, Kerry, Clare and other counties have been cut off and discontinued during the past 12 months on economic grounds.

At present we are told that CIE are to discontinue the service between Rosslare, Wexford and Limerick Junction. I would ask the Minister to take a hard look at this proposal. Apart from the fact that it is losing more than £100,000, it must be taken into account that this line is the main feeder service for Thurles beet factory. One factor must be weighed against the other. I disagree with the proposal to discontinue this service because although CIE would save a sum in the region of £130,000, they would cause a very serious upset and definitely threaten the livelihoods of people in places such as Thurles beet factory. The amount of money that would be saved is insignificant in comparison with losses in other services operated by CIE.

The Dublin bus service is losing £6.09 million. Most people in this city who use the buses will agree that CIE are doing a very poor and sloppy job at present. Apart from the present goslow, they operate very badly in normal conditions, and I am sure the Minister will find that his Department receive very many complaints about this service.

The Dublin bus service is losing more than £6 million and yet CIE want to interfere with the goods service between Wexford and Limerick Junction which is of such great importance in maintaining the supply of beet to the factory at Thurles which provides jobs for many people in the Thurles area. They cannot justify that proposed action. There is another ferry service between this country and Britain and they propose getting out of the business altogether. This one, in the first half of this year, made a profit of £35,000. They propose discontinuing that service despite the fact that it is allegedly making a profit. Also they are threatening to discontinue the goods service from Wexford to Limerick Junction, through Thurles, because it is losing £135,000. There would appear to be grave inconsistencies in the reasons they put forward for the discontinuance of services.

The railway system has a social role to play in this and every country. The continued closure of lines interferes with the industrial infrastructure and the facilities that should be available in any country hoping to set up more industry, as is the case in rural Ireland. Even though costly it is necessary that the railway system be maintained. It is particularly important for people who come here with a view to setting up industry. It is something they must take into consideration and, if they ascertain that we have not got a proper transport system, particularly in regard to the railways, they will not be tempted to set up industries here.

CIE are seeking a further £3,900,000. The total Supplementary Estimate is for £133,000. Certain savings have been effected under the different subheads, as set out in the Supplementary Estimate, some of which have been worthy and about which nobody will quibble. But there are a few on which we should like more information, such as that under subhead E which represents a saving of £610,000. It is a saving on the original Estimate for Grants for Harbours which amounted to £719,000. As far as I am aware, the original Estimate included something in the region of £500,000 for the development of Cork harbour. As far as I am aware there was an announcement made to that effect. There was a further announcement made recently at a press conference before the Minister's predecessor left office, held in Cork, at which it was said that £2,500,000 more was being made available for Cork harbour in 1977. One wonders what was the purpose of a press conference to announce something like that if it is a fact that the previous amount allocated for the development of Cork harbour has not been paid and nothing has happened. The money has been saved and set off against CIE losses. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate somewhat on this matter if what I say is correct in regard to the £500,000 supposed to be allocated for the development of Cork harbour.

There was another saving of £380,000 under the subhead "Constructional works at airports including furnishing of buildings". I should imagine the main portion of that saving took place on constructional works. Surely that is something that should not have happened at this time because such works provide much needed employment in that industry. The implementation of such works would certainly lead to fewer people drawing the dole. Therefore I do not agree with that saving.

There is a further subhead, X "town gas subsidy" in respect of which there was a saving of part of the subsidy of £70,000. As was mentioned during Question Time today the report on naphtha said there was no information available on its price. The report says that no information is available in regard to naphtha. We all know what naphtha is costing. For small gas companies, such as Limerick Gas Company, it has gone up now to approximately £90. A very large percentage of gas users are old people in this city, in Limerick and, I presume, in Cork as well. Surely this money could be utilised to lessen the burden of providing heating and cooking facilities for many of those people. I question the wisdom of not disbursing the amount of money voted originally in the annual estimate.

We should like to know why these things have happened particularly with regard to the question of grants for harbours. Such work would have provided badly-needed employment as well as implementing what the Government undertook to do during the past 12 months. In the light of the press conference of two weeks ago at which it was announced that an extra £2,500,000 would be given to Cork harbour in the coming year, it will be extremely difficult for anybody to believe that that will happen if they did not provide the money they said they would in the current year. I believe also that the saving effected on gas should have been utilised to the full in assisting people so dependent on it in Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

The amount of money is small but it would be of some help to those people, particularly older people, who are dependent on gas. Speaking of energy in general, we are facing an increase in cost of possibly something in the region of 10 to 17 per cent during January. The OPEC conference is scheduled for 15th December and it seems that prices will escalate. This situation raises further difficulties for us. The Minister has before him at present a report on the conservation of energy, including gas. I would be very critical in regard to that report because it is incomplete and from what I have read of it so far it is not worth the money spent on it—about £5,000. We should be tackling the base of the energy problem. In other words, we should be endeavouring to ensure supplies and also to put ourselves in the position of being able to do something about the cost factor. One of the first steps in this direction would be to set up the further refining capacity that is badly needed. In this regard the Minister for Finance can take immediate action by reducing the taxation content on energy to industry, road users and to all those who use the various forms of energy, particularly oil. The extra taxation that has been imposed in this area during the past three years has added considerably to the problem created by the OPEC countries in increasing costs.

I note that CIE are offering most of their hotels for sale. I do not think they are free to sell these establishments without the matter coming first before this House but perhaps the Minister will confirm whether I am right. So far as I know there is legislation preventing them from taking any such action. The company have tried in the past to dispose of their hotels but the plan did not go ahead. However, I would ask the Minister to ensure that they are not sold without our getting the opportunity of discussing the pros and cons of the situation. Undoubtedly the situation in regard to these hotels is bad because of the failure of the tourist industry to come up to expectations. However, we can look forward to the day when that industry will pick up again. We all know the reasons for its decline. CIE should consider retaining these hotels in which employment is being provided for a large number of people. There is no guarantee that those who would purchase them would continue to employ the same number of people. That is why I suggest that CIE have a duty to consider the various factors involved before proceeding with their plan in this regard.

Mr. Leonard

I should like, first, to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Department of Transport and Power and to wish him well in his new office.

In his speech the Minister told us that the increasing deficits in respect of CIE's operations are a cause of grave concern, that the board share this concern and are making a determined effort to arrest the escalating deficits by way of the implementation of productivity and cost-production schemes. One wonders whether the plan to dispose of the company's hotels is part of that scheme. It is a pity that notice of the company's intention in this regard was not given to us at the time we were discussing a Private Members' motion last week on the question of tourism. Had this information been available to us then we could have discussed this whole question.

Has the Minister any information as to whether CIE have discussed this proposed sale with Bord Fáilte? I wonder whether they have considered fully the implications of what they are doing for the future of the tourist trade. A week ago we drew the attention of the Minister to the problems facing that industry. During the year we suggested remedies which in our opinion would save the industry but our advice was not taken. We have the sad situation now of a big fall-off in the number of tourists coming here from Britain. It is important that this decline be arrested because that market is our most immediate and most lucrative. The fall-off was in the region of 47,000.

During the debate last week the Minister told us that he foresaw a bright future for the industry. CIE are very much involved in tourism, but it would seem to be an admission of failure on their part to sell off five of their hotels. It was reported in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times that CIE intend selling the hotels individually and not as a chain and that they considered that these establishments could be operated best by the private sector.

As our spokesman on Transport and Power has indicated, it is probable that the company have not the right to dispose of these premises without the matter coming first before this House. It is my hope that the matter will be debated here before permission is granted for the sale of the hotels, because this would give us an opportunity of discussing in detail the implications of the move for the tourist industry. If it should transpire that because CIE are unable to secure purchasers for these premises they must be closed, there would be a total loss of 289 beds—57 in Kenmare, 71 in Mulrany, 58 in Sligo and 103 in Bundoran. It was also mentioned that they proposed to dispose of the Russell Court Hotel in Belfast, which has 300 bedrooms. During last week's debate we expressed concern about the number of hotel closures that have taken place since the Government came into office. We stated that 112 hotels had closed with a loss of 3,500 bedrooms, which is 15 per cent of the total rooms available. We estimated that there would be a loss of 2,500 jobs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be widening the scope of the estimate.

Mr. Leonard

In replying to last week's debate the Minister said—I am quoting from column 1004 of the Official Report for the 30th November, 1976:

However, I do not think the people in Board Fáilte who are responsible for standards in the industry would weep over all the hotels that closed. It was unfortunate that some of them closed but others had outlived their usefulness.

I wonder whether the Minister had direct responsibility for those hotels. It is for us to say——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will be aware from the Supplementary Estimate that the grant is to CIE.

Mr. Leonard

They have responsibility for the hotels. I hope we will have another opportunity to discuss this matter. The Estimate lists some of CIE's substantial losses for which subventions are required. The Estimate does not provide for a subvention for the road freight service, which has to be operated on a commercial basis. We have received many complaints about the reduction in freight services in many areas. While we realise that the freight service must pay its way, it is important that all areas should be properly catered for. At the time of the closures we were told that there would be no loss of traffic and that people would not suffer in regard to deliveries. There has been a curtailment in deliveries during the last few years. I must admit that CIE's area managers, particularly in the north-eastern region, are making commendable efforts to keep the service going, even where it is creating problems for them. Passenger and freight services should not be curtailed to the extent that hardships are created. CIE should have equipped themselves before now for the transportation of goods on pallets. For years CIE monopolised the transportation of fertilisers and grain. I believe that they should have developed a more efficient service at that time and equipped themselves for the change to pallets. Had they been better equipped they would have been able to compete.

The Minister should make an in-depth study of the sale of the hotels. They should not proceed with the sale of the hotels until they have discussed the matter with Bord Fáilte.

Mr. Callanan

Most of the losses referred to in the Minister's brief relate to CIE. Everybody agrees that CIE must continue their operations because of the social aspect of their business. I wonder if CIE have been inefficient because they know that they must continue at all costs. Deputy Leonard said that they monopolised transport for quite a long time and that they did not try to hold on to this part of their operations. Are CIE not doing what a private company would do in similar circumstances? Are CIE top heavy? They have redundancies at the bottom of the scale but none at the top. CIE may have too many officers and not enough soldiers. We are the people who vote for the allocation of moneys to CIE and we should investigate the staffing of CIE.

It has been said that owner/managers would do better, but this is an admission by a State company that the private sector can do better. I am disappointed with that admission. We talk about CIE as a social and transport service, but surely the hotels are not a social service. It is extraordinary that CIE are now proposing to sell their hotels. They are valuable premises, and there is no doubt that they will have to be sold at a loss. I agree with Deputies Barrett and Leonard that this matter should be brought before the House.

CIE closed the rail line between Castlebar and Ennis without providing some alternative means of transport. The Ennistymon-Loughrea service was discontinued. Everyone who has any experience, such as I have, of Loughrea, knows what has happened. The service is nothing like what it should be. The reason why CIE are not competitive at present is that they do not put on all the services. One reason why we must see that the rail service is preserved is that our roads are deteriorating all over the country. We have not got the roads in those backward places. There is the road from Castlebar to Ennis. The road from Tuam to Athenry is the crookedest in Ireland. You could not possibly put an efficient service on it.

We should try to make CIE attractive. With the present price of petrol this is the wrong time for CIE to close down. CIE should have the go-ahead now to provide a better service. With some extra money they would attract a great number of people who are going by road in their own cars, if the service is provided. I did not take part in the debate on this matter here but I heard a person state that if people wanted to travel, with the service available it would be better for them to take their cars and go to Athenry instead of boarding public transport in Tuam because the connections and the time-table were so bad. This came up in every discussion we had with CIE, that those lines would close down if they did not make a genuine attempt to facilitate the public. We on this side of the House know that CIE must be subsidised and kept in existence, but we should see that they run their business more efficiently than they do.

Mr. Lalor

As has already been stated by our spokesman for Transport and Power, it is unfortunate that this important debate has to be so confined in so far as it deals specifically with the Supplementary Estimate. I would have welcomed the opportunity of being able to discuss the whole operation of transport and power. I am sure the new Minister would have welcomed the overall view. However, there is no point in spending time on that.

I am disappointed at the manner in which the new Minister for Transport and Power introduced this Supplementary Estimate on an occasion when he had an opportunity of being able to say much more. He was limited in what he could say in relation to this Estimate, but I am surprised and disappointed that the whole content of his speech related to the additional £3.9 million required in this Estimate for CIE, even though in fact what the House is being asked to vote is only £133,000. I say "only" with tongue in cheek. There was a great deal the Minister might have said across a wide section of the responsibility of his own Department arising from these savings amounting to £2.3 million that took place which enables the estimate of his requirements to be reduced to £133,000. I would like to address my remarks in that direction. I take it that I am at liberty to talk about the items covered under the subheads in the savings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Appropriations only.

Mr. Lalor

Yes, in the savings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Voted money.

Mr. Lalor

Then I can deal only with the £133,000?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amount that is being voted.

Mr. Lalor

But we are voting £3.9 million for CIE and that is offset by various savings. Am I not at liberty to comment on the fact that we saved £600,000 by doing nothing about harbours?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

For the Deputy's information, subheads of the Original Vote under which there were savings are not open to debate.

Mr. Lalor

Basically then we have a subhead D.1 in connection with CIE. Can I not refer to the fact that we are saving £638,000?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not on this occasion.

Mr. Lalor

Of course we never get the other occasion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy does appreciate that the Chair is just——

Mr. Lalor

Yes, I appreciate that the Chair is helpless in that regard, but I can certainly comment on a situation whereby we are presented here with a bill for £3.9 million and basically we are talking about only £133,000 of that bill. This is where I find it very inhibiting. However, we can deal with that.

The situation is that I am still, despite that, disappointed with the approach of the new Minister for Transport and Power. I had hoped that he would comment more in his introductory remarks on the possible proposals that the board of CIE had in relation to economies. He did say that he was aware that the board of CIE were his concern and were making a determined effort to arrest the escalating deficits through the implementation of productivity and cost reduction schemes. The members of this House and the general public, particularly the public in Dublin city, must be very much aware of the fact that the board's determined efforts are not meeting with the success that the Minister and the board would wish. He goes on to say that it is essential that these efforts should be continued and that he as Minister would be pressing the board to pursue vigorously more practical measures to improve efficiency and secure economies in operation. I am not going to say that his predecessor did not say it, but the situation as far as CIE are concerned is such that we have reached the point when the Minister should spell out what he thinks of the measures being taken by CIE in relation to increased productivity or, if you like, making the operation less costly and more economic.

I listened recently to a radio interview in which a trade union official working in the CIE establishment categorically stated that the bus timetables issued by CIE in relation to the Dublin city bus service operation were fictitious, imaginary and false, in that with the number of buses in service and the capacity that CIE had it was impossible to imagine the service that CIE promised in relation to a given bus route. The fleet that CIE had at their disposal could not possibly arrange to leave the starting points or termini, whichever one likes to call them, on the city edge at 11.04, again at 11.13 and again at 11.56. It just was not on. There were not as many buses operating on that route as there could be even if we did not have a man on the radio between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the morning and between 5 o'clock and 6.30 p.m. in the evening, explaining there was a blockage in O'Connell Street, or that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs by courtesy of Dublin Corporation had taken up the South Circular Road to lay cables and, because of this, the buses could not run and there were diversions.

We have not had an opportunity to discuss this Estimate for some time. The Minister is now looking for £31.9 million under subhead D.1. to enable CIE to meet their commitments. He should have been able to give us more than a re-statement of Ministerial policy that he will continue to impress on CIE the necessity to tighten things up. We cannot blame the present Minister for anything that happened before. He has not had time to adjust himself. I hope he will soon state clearly and categorically what he feels is wrong with the overall operations of CIE. The people of this country, and particularly the people of the city, are very frustrated and, to use the old cliché, something must be done. I hope the section of the Department dealing with CIE, in conjunction with the board of CIE, will do something positive about it.

The grants to CIE come under several headings. There is the grant in respect of rail passenger services under the EEC regulation, and the grant in respect of public service obligations not covered by the EEC regulation, railway infrastructure costs and residual deficits, as permitted by the EEC regulation. The spending of money by CIE to improve their railheads must be considered in that context. If there is a disimprovement by reason of the shedding of what is traditionally regarded as CIE accommodation in CIE hotels that must also come under the heading of subhead D.1.

A wave of annoyance is spreading across the middle and southern part of the country because of the treatment being meted out to workers and farmers all the way from Limerick to Rosslare Harbour by CIE. This is an example of the efforts by the board of CIE going haywire. The Minister said there was a substantial decrease in rail freight carryings. That was one of the two major facts responsible for this increased Estimate. I have to accept that the wage agreement has a serious bearing on the matter, but I wonder whether the additional CIE wage bill of £2.4 million is built into that to let the workers take the rap for almost two-thirds of this increase, whereas the balance of £1.5 million is due largely to a reduction in railway traffic.

In Christmas week next year, will the Minister come to the House looking for another £3 million or £4 million and blame it on the serious decline in the rail passenger traffic, due to the general economic recession? We had a debate earlier this year about the Limerick-Claremorris line. If the Rosslare-Limerick Junction line is closed there must be a fall-off in income.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Net income, I imagine.

Mr. Lalor

I am glad the Minister drew attention to that. The Minister was very conscious of my remark about income. In his statement he made no reference to net income. When supplementary estimates are brought into this House at this time, there is an assumption that they will be rushed through quickly. Of necessity they have to be let through. We are trying to facilitate the Government as much as possible. It is rather significant that net income does not seem to have entered the Minister's mind when he was preparing his speech. A few moments ago I said something more needs to be done than that the Minister should make the pious observation that he will impress on the board of CIE the need to pursue vigorously all practicable measures to improve efficiency and to secure economies in operation, without spelling out where he thought that could be done.

He will probably say that is a matter for the board of CIE, but the board could do with a bit of nudging from the Minister. From the reports I have received, Ministers of the Government, without making a particular reference to the Minister for Transport and Power, do quite an amount of nudging of boards in various directions. In his speech when the Minister had the opportunity of giving us some idea of the direction in which he would like the board to steer he dodged again. Earlier on he told us that the effect of the increase in costs and the short-fall in revenue have been partially offset by an increase in productivity. Could he tell us in what way this partial improvement in productivity has been brought about? We know about the present difficulties in Dublin in regard to the cutting down of services. The board apparently believe services will be just as good with fewer buses. On the other hand, the union decided that cutting down should not be implemented until after Christmas because people could not do without extra buses during this period and we finished up with no buses at all for a while.

The Minister has a great advantage at the moment and I am sure he knows it. He has the advantage in replying to this debate of giving us some of his own ideas without consultation with either CIE or his own officials. He is new to the job and I am sure he must have a number of ideas of his own. When I was on that side of the House the Minister had the capacity to speak eloquently on a diversity of matters. His brief was never confined. He was expert on local government. He could turn his hand to many subjects, and I am sure he now has ideas of his own as to how the operations of CIE could be improved and I hope he will give us the benefit of some of those ideas without any research because, when a subject is researched, a Minister becomes inhibited.

It is unfortunate we do not have an opportunity of saying all the things we would like to say in connection with the saving in travelling expenses, redundancy, harbours and rural electrification. The saving on rural electrification amazes me. Another saving arises through the non-spending of money on airport development. Now recently we had a very interesting television programme about a town gas supply in a certain area, and it is extraordinary that we should have saved money on rural electrification and yet cannot discuss a subject the country is very anxious should be discussed.

Mr. Browne

I welcome the Minister, rather late in the day and late in the year, but I wish him every success in his new appointment. If he had had in the Department of Lands the amount of money being voted here to CIE I am sure he would have made a great job of Lands. He did reasonably well, but he could have done a hell of a lot better if he had had this money. I claim to have more experience of CIE, the Dublin buses and public transport than the Minister, some of it not all that happy.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): But the Deputy survived.

Mr. Browne

I survived, and damn lucky I was to survive, and I hope when it comes to the end of this year or, possibly, the end of next year CIE will have a few quid to pay my expenses. However, that is beside the point. There is an extra £4 million in this Estimate for CIE and that prompts me to deal with a matter near and dear to the hearts of the people of Wexford and to the hearts of Deputies and Senators in four other constituencies. We have here an additional £4 million bringing the total up to £31 million odd. CIE propose —I would not be surprised to learn it is a firm decision—to close down one of the most important rail links, the stretch from Rosslare Harbour to Limerick Junction, and the idea, according to CIE, is to save a certain sum of money. It is very difficult for the ordinary Deputy to find out how much they propose to save. We have heard various figures—£150,000 to £500,000 has been mentioned. I trust the Minister will give us some realistic figure. With CIE getting a bonus of £4 million here it is difficult to understand why they should propose to close down this most important rail link in order to save £150,000 or £500,000.

I am grievously disappointed with CIE on one score. On 26th August last I brought a very strong deputation of Wexford county councillors, beet growers, members of the committee of agriculture, parents of children attending school in Waterford and representatives of employees working in Waterford to meet the general manager of CIE, Mr. Higgins, and his top brass in Heuston Station. That discussion lasted something under 15 minutes, less time than I have in which to speak here this evening. The reason it only lasted 15 minutes, and I want to put this on record here as I and that deputation have put it on record elsewhere—is because on that day the general manager of CIE gave a firm commitment, a solemn undertaking, to that deputation that that rail link between Rosslare and Waterford—we were interested more in that line than the whole line in question—would not be closed until there was a suitable road alternative from the south east of Wexford into Kilkenny and then to Waterford. Now, just a few months later, he tells us that that line will be closed down. Had the Minister told us when we met him that it was not economic to keep the line open we would have argued with him and given him the reasons why it should be kept open, but we did not do so because of the undertaking he gave us.

The saving suggested is something in the region of £500,000, or possibly £250,000, and when one bears in mind that the Dublin bus service will this year lose £6 million it is hard to understand why CIE are closing down a line that is so important to the south east. Rosslare Harbour is possibly the most important port in Ireland. Thousands of visitors use that port annually, but if this line is closed that port will be downgraded. It should be remembered that an additional service to the continent from Rosslare will be introduced next year. The alternative to the rail link is so fantastic that it is like a Christmas story or a fairy tale. They are away up in the clouds when they suggest that the Barrow viaduct could be converted into a bridge to take the road traffic from that part of the country. I do not think there is any hope that that could happen. Any board set up by the planning authority who would uphold the decisions that will come from Wexford and Kilkenny county councils on that application would be stone mad. It is a railway bridge and nothing else, and no matter what effort is made to convert it it could not be used for heavy traffic. Only one vehicle at a time could cross it and the approach roads to it are non-existent. It would be impossible to convert it.

It has been stated that a well-known company are prepared to provide a toll bridge over the Barrow, but Wexford County Council estimate that it would cost between £1 million and £2 million to provide approach roads to the bridge. If any of the juggernauts that come from the continent broke down in the tunnel at that bridge they could be there for six months and block the bridge to other traffic. We should also bear in mind the school children who travel from south Wexford to Waterford to school. The closing of this line would mean a great hardship to them. It would also be a hardship on the workers in that area who travel to Waterford. The proposed bus service to replace the rail link from Rosslare Harbour through New Ross and on to Waterford would mean an additional 30 miles or one hour's travelling per day for these people.

Another important matter to bear in mind is the fact that south Wexford provides in the region of 50 per cent of the beet used in the Thurles sugar factory. It would not be possible to transport that beet if the rail link was closed. If the rail link is closed the Thurles factory will close for want of raw material and the farmers of Wexford will go out of production of beet.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.00 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 14th December, 1976.