I move:
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.
This motion is signed by a number of Deputies from the area affected by the proposed closure. We hope we will be successful in ensuring that the line will not be closed and that the services will be continued indefinitely.
About two years ago we had a debate in this House on a similar kind of motion with regard to the closure of the passenger service line from Limerick to Claremorris. We had the debate in Private Members' time and, in addition, there were large representative deputations to this House to meet Deputies and the then Minister, Deputy Peter Barry. They made their case strongly and it seemed a reasonable one. However, on that occasion the then Minister was very emphatic that the decision with regard to the closure of the line was solely a matter for the board of CIE and he would not intervene in any way to ensure that the line would be kept open. This was his attitude to the deputations and to this House and the service in question was discontinued.
With regard to the Rosslare/ Limerick Junction railway service, we know that the board of CIE decided in late 1976 to close this line. The only matter outstanding was the time of closure. We are not just speculating when we say that. I was informed of this by a high ranking executive of CIE. It was only a matter of time until the line would be closed. The outstanding question then was the necessity to reach some form of agreement with the commuters of west Waterford and south Wexford, an agreement that would be acceptable to them as an alternative to the present service. If such an agreement could be arrived at, CIE were of the opinion that there was nothing in the way of closing the line to Limerick Junction.
At that time CIE were not concerned about the haulage of beet from south Wexford to Thurles. After about six weeks, on 21st January, 1977, the present Minister for Transport and Power at a meeting in the constituency of North Tipperary—an area that will be badly affected by the closure and, incidentally, one that might be regarded as a marginal constituency —issued a statement as follows:
No final decision has been taken to close down the Rosslare/Waterford line and no such decision will be taken until the problems have been fully considered and until a satisfactory method of transport in the area has been provided. It follows, therefore, that there is no question of closing down this rail line in the immediate future, as has been suggested. Indeed, it is obvious that it cannot and will not be closed down for some considerable time, if at all, and certainly, as I have said, not until a suitable alternative transport service is provided.
I trust that what I have said will put an end to the speculation and will allay the genuine fears concerning the proposed closure.
It cannot be denied that there is a serious conflict of approach between the attitude of the present Minister for Transport and Power and that of his predecessor concerning the role of the Minister with regard to a decision of the board of CIE. The people of east Galway, Mayo and parts of Clare were affected by the closure of the western line which we debated in this House two years ago. What will they think of the conflicting attitudes of the two Ministers in a period of less than two years? They are entitled to believe they were abandoned by the then Minister who would not intervene in a decision taken by CIE on that occasion. They are entitled to feel hurt and abandoned by the Government and the then Minister because of his approach and his definite attitude with regard to intervening in decisions of the CIE board, especially when they make a comparison with the attitude of the present Minister.
On this occasion the people of south Wexford, Waterford, Kilkenny and Tipperary are entitled to have some doubts with regard to the statement made by the Minister for Transport and Power, particularly when he says:
Indeed, it is obvious that it cannot and will not be closed down for some considerable time, if at all, and certainly, as I have said, not until a suitable alternative transport service is provided.
Undoubtedly there are ifs and buts in that statement. My reading of it, and this is shared by many others, is that it is only a temporary deferring of a decision already taken by the board of CIE at the end of 1976. None of the interests concerned, with the exception of CIE, believes that a suitable alternative transport service can be provided. This was debated extensively in a recent RTE programme and it was obvious to everyone that CIE could not provide an acceptable alternative service. They attempted to explain what they had in mind but they were very much alone in believing that it would be acceptable.
There has been a gradual run down in this service in the past two years or even longer. This kind of approach by CIE has become quite common before they announce the closure of a line. When we were debating in this House the closure of the passenger services on the western line we were told they were uneconomic but until we pointed it out, nobody mentioned the fact that CIE had been running down the services for some years. They succeeded in their action on that occasion by operating express bus services running parallel with the line in question. They did this for some years before they announced the closure; in other words, the bus service was in direct competition with the rail passenger service which we were attempting to keep in operation and which the people of the area wanted to keep in operation. The same thing seems to have happened on this occasion. There has been a run down in the service in the past two years and now they have announced the closure of the line.
Last year all freight traffic, with the exception of beet and pulp products, ceased on this line. We should remember that 40 per cent of the total intake of beet at the Thurles sugar factory is grown in the south Wexford area, which has a long tradition of beet growing and compares favourably with other beet growing areas. The people in the south Wexford area will be affected by this decision as well as the people of Thurles. The closure would undoubtedly be serious for south Wexford and the Thurles sugar factory, particularly in regard to employment in the Thurles area. At present we are supposed to be striving to create more employment but we should not forget that we must also strive to maintain employment.
The Government do not seem to be able to relieve the unemployment problem. The Thurles sugar factory is the main industry in the area and the closure of the line would mean that the factory would be denied 40 per cent of its raw material. The only alternative for the south Wexford beet growers would be to transfer their produce to the Carlow factory which is not much closer to them than the Thurles factory. However, the Carlow factory has not the capacity to receive the beet from south Wexford. In order to cater for the extra intake of beet, Carlow factory would need an injection of cash and it would not be appropriate for the Irish Sugar Company to inject capital into it at this time. Prolonging the usual beet campaign to facilitate the extra tonnage from Wexford is out of the question because the beet crop would not survive a longer campaign.
Any action along these lines in regard to Carlow would mean that the volume of beet entering the Thurles factory would be reduced to 60 per cent. This would mean that the existence of the Thurles factory would be in jeopardy. It would also mean the loss of 50 to 60 days in the annual beet campaign, a loss of work in the area and the loss of £600,000 in direct wages to the people who work in the Thurles factory. In turn, this would mean a serious loss to Thurles town and the surrounding area because the money would no longer be in circulation. It would undoubtedly mean the downgrading or the closure of the Thurles sugar factory and its associated industries. The fulltime labour force at the Thurles sugar factory and the Killough lime quarry is approximately 330. This is a large number of permanent employees in a provincial town such as Thurles. During the campaign the part-time workers number 220 and they do seven days shift work and earn good money. This would be a further serious loss for the area.
The total value of beet paid for by the Thurles sugar factory is £6.7 million. A loss of 40 per cent would mean a drop in beet payments to approximately £4 million. CIE's reason for closing the line is their loss of £130,000 in operating it last year. I fail to see how any Government could justify or condone such a closure. The figure of £130,000 seems a small amount for CIE to carry when compared with the possible job losses and the loss of cash flow into the Thurles area. CIE's proposed alternative transport could mean further losses for them because it would mean changing from rail to road haulage. The diesel oil used in road haulage would be in the region of 180,000 gallons. At present the rail system is using 50,000 gallons of diesel. This should surely be regarded as a serious loss for CIE. At present the national oil bill is more than £600 million. Before the oil crisis in 1973 our oil bill was £35 million. Here we have a semi-State body which is proposing to use a great deal more oil, from 50,000 gallons of diesel to 180,000 gallons, and their only reason for this is that they claim they lost £130,000 last year by operating the rail system as against the road haulage system which they propose.
The alternative arrangements would also mean 90 articulated lorries to haul the same amount of beet as against 150-odd rail wagons under the present arrangements. One must ask how can the road system in this area or in most other areas bear up under this further heavy haulage traffic of 90 articulated lorries to haul the beet from south Wexford to Thurles. Those of us who use the roads every week appreciate the hazards which an increasing number of articulated trucks create even on the main road, say from Dublin to Limerick, where there are dual carriageways in a few places only. Now CIE propose to increase that traffic further on a road system which is not fit to carry it.
Any reasonable person must surely agree that the only answer to this question is to continue to utilise our rail system despite this what I describe as a minimal loss of £130,000, minimal again by comparison with the total subsidy of around £32 million which this House provided out of State funds in the last 12 months for CIE. We are now asking that this House should be united in telling CIE that this service must not be withdrawn, and I have in mind particularly the Deputies on the other side of the House who have already made public statements in regard to the proposed closure of this line. They must surely decide where they stand. Some of them have stated in the press that they are completely opposed to any closure or interference with this line. Deputy John Ryan of North Tipperary is reported as telling his constituents that the proposed closure of this line was selfish, unpatriotic, inward and detrimental to the well-being of the beet growers of County Wexford and to the continued development of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and particularly to the viability of the factory in Thurles. Now is the time for him to decide where he stands in regard to this motion and to vote in accordance with the way he has expressed himself to his constituents in North Tipperary. CIE losses have grown to an unbelievable level, from £5.7 million in 1971 to £32 million last year, and this increase has occurred in the main during the last four years of what can only be described as economic mismanagement.
We in Fianna Fáil do not propose to adopt a negative approach to CIE. We do not propose to see what we can close down with the least political embarrassment. We will set out to create an economic revolution all over this country which will stretch the capacity of our national transport company to carry the goods and passengers that will come from the renewed industrial expansion that this country needs so badly. A national transport system should not be seen as a liability. It is and should be seen to be a national asset. Developing countries all over the world strain their resources in order to develop a national transport system. Their greatest problem of expansion is to provide facilities for the movement of raw materials and finished goods in those developing countries.
Why then should we here in Ireland be looking at CIE as an embarrassment or a liability? It is not. It is a means of moving goods and passengers and providing a service to all parts of the country. We in Fianna Fáil will answer CIE's problem with more goods to carry, thereby giving more revenue. That is the side of the balance sheet that Fianna Fáil will deal with when returned to office at the next general election.
