We are now moving into Private Members' Time. Item No. 16 is a motion in the name of Deputy Byrne and others, and there is an amendment in the name of An tAire Iompair. The opening speaker has 20 minutes. Each other speaker has 15 minutes and the final Fianna Fáil speaker will be called at 8.25 p.m. I propose to take the time from the clock in front of me and I ask all Deputies to co-operate.
Private Members' Business. - Closure of Rail Line: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to reject any proposal to close the rail line from Rosslare Harbour to Limerick or Rosslare Harbour to Dublin for passenger or freight service.
In moving the motion I would like to refer to a report commissioned by the south eastern regional organisation in 1982. In 1977 when CIE proposed to terminate services on the Limerick Junction — Rosslare Harbour Railway, the local authorities, regional development organisations, chamber of commerce and trade unions in the area served by the line opposed the closure and submitted a joint case for its retention to the Minister for Transport and Power and to CIE. Following the statement issued by the Minister on 19 January 1977 this proposal was not proceeded with. This statement was subsequently reiterated in the Dáil in reply to an Opposition motion, "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".
On 4 December 1981 the chairman of CIE stated that the question of termination of the service was again under consideration, that a decision had been deferred and that proposals would be examined in four to five months. Arising from this, a joint meeting of the local authorities, regional development organisations, chambers of commerce and other bodies in the area affected by the closure was held on 15 April 1982. The meeting reaffirmed its opposition to withdrawal of the service. This is the reason for the motion here tonight.
Wexford County Council, Wexford Corporation, the urban councils, district committees, Gorey Town Commissioners and Rosslare Harbour Development Board have all spoken out strongly against the closure of both lines. Indeed, all five TDs are represented on bodies, having been elected thereto by the people of Wexford, and in their capacity as members of the organisations mentioned, have declared their intention to support at all times the continuation of this line. Deputies, county councillors and all members of these bodies have been vociferous in this regard and I hope our friends on the Opposition benches from County Wexford and the areas affected by the proposed closure of the two railway lines will show their true colours because they have made many promises and given many commitments with regard to this matter. A watery amendment will not be acceptable to the people of Wexford or indeed to the people in the south.
The area served by the line is one of rapid population growth and projections show that this will continue. There was a population increase of 16 per cent in the decade to 1981 and a continuation of this trend would mean a population increase of up to 60,000 people by the end of the century.
Allied to this is the expansion of the manufacturing and commercial sectors. Manufacturing employment increased by 20 per cent in the decade up to 1982 and this rate of increase must continue to cater for the increasing population. The line serves a number of industrial sites of great potential for large-scale industries, both in Waterford Harbour, the Suir Valley and, more particularly, south Wexford. It is in the regional and national interest that nothing is done to diminish this potential. Everybody will agree that a railway service is a particularly important part of infrastructure for this type of industry. The railway line should be retained for those developments.
I should like to refer to Thurles sugar factory even though my colleagues from Tipperary will expound further on the subject. As shown in the 1977 submission, the termination of the rail services would have a very adverse effect on the sugar industry in Thurles and could render that factory non-viable. A beet depot was built at Wellingtonbridge, County Wexford, in 1978 at a cost of £1 million to the taxpayers. All the beet from south Wexford is collected at this depot for transport by rail to either Thurles or Tuam beet factories. This project, unlike many others, has been and is working exceptionally well and has exceeded the expectations of the 650 growers, the Sugar Company and CIE. In this respect, great credit is due to the local manager and staff who are doing an excellent job trying to keep beet growers happy while delivering beet or collecting pulp. At a time when tractors and trailers are at peak demand that takes fair organisation. The depot was built around rail facilities and every aspect is adapted for railways. Surely it cannot be the Minister's intention to turn this into a white elephant?
Cómhluct Siúcre Éireann estimate that the additional cost of conveying the beet to Thurles by road rather than by rail would be £600,000 per annum. Even if the Carlow sugar factory could process the beet, the additional haulage costs would be £400,000. To haul the beet by road, it is estimated that more than 100 articulated trucks would be needed. The capital cost of this would be approximately £3 million and we can well imagine the effect that more than 100 articulated trucks would have on our roads, particularly the road between New Ross and Thurles. I travel it quite often, it is one of the worst roads in the country and I would hate to meet an articulated truck on any part of it.
Additional fuel usage must also be an item of great concern because it is estimated that 180,000 gallons of diesel would be needed to haul the beet by road as against 50,000 gallons by rail. It is in the national interest that this saving in fuel should be continued if the Government are intent on conserving energy and I have no reason to believe otherwise. The cost of beet growing would be substantially increased if the rail transport was replaced by road haulage to Thurles and any other sugar factory. Road freight rates are higher than those for rail. Road freight costs £6 per ton whereas the rail freight is in excess of £3 per ton. County Wexford grows 25 per cent of the national beet crop and the area is noted for its very high yields. Anything which would render it uneconomic to continue growing the crop would have grave implications for the Sugar Company. It is most unlikely that the acreage would be taken up by any other parts of the country.
Everybody knows that the ground in Wexford is ideal for growing beet. The expertise of the Wexford people in beet-growing would be lost and expertise in this matter cannot be acquired overnight. A former Taoiseach of the Minister's party once said that 25,000 jobs were estimated to come within the ambit of the Sugar Company. If anything happens to diminish the attractiveness of beet-growing in south Wexford, which accounts for one-quarter of the nation's crop, the Sugar Company will fall on hard times. It is well to remember that 25,000 jobs depend on it. In south Wexford there is a turnover of £7 million per year, £5,500,000 of this being paid to the farmers in the area. However, the effects would extend far beyond the direct loss in sugar production. Wexford is the most intensive tillage county, it has the highest acreage of wheat and barley and it is the second highest in feeding barley and root crops.
I am somewhat bemused to hear the Deputy talking about tillage and beet. I am not sure of its relevance to the debate.
I submit it is highly relevant.
If I may finish my point of order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that we are talking about the proposed closure of the passenger line from Rosslare Harbour. Perhaps the Chair would ask the Deputy to state how these other matters are relevant.
The Minister can deal with that in his reply. This is a limited debate and there should not be interruptions.
I will have 15 minutes to speak, which is much less.
The Minister is cutting in on the Deputy's time.
I am at a loss to know what beet and tillage have to do with the matter before the House.
That is not a point of order.
The motion refers to passenger or freight service. If the Minister listens a little more attentively he will find out why I am placing so much emphasis on the carriage of beet from Wexford. If beet-growing diminished, other forms of tillage would decrease also and this would be a serious national loss at a time when strenuous efforts are being made to increase tillage farming and to replace imported feedstuffs with homegrown products. Farmers in Wexford have a large investment in machinery which is absolutely necessary for beet production and much of this investment would be lost if beet-growing ceased. I would point out that approximately 120 people are employed on contracting. This is the growing, spraying and harvesting of the crop. As tillage farming is more intensive than other farming methods both directly and in the off-farm jobs it creates, a change to other farming systems would aggravate the serious unemployment problem in Wexford where 5,500 people are unemployed at the moment. There would be losses also in the Sugar Company, in CIE and those involved in haulage.
The expansion of traffic through Rosslare Harbour has been remarkable in recent years. This has been so because the natural and commercial benefits of the short sea routes to the UK and Europe are recognised. The investment by CIE in the additional pier and other port works is evidence of this. In their development plan for Rosslare Harbour, Wexford County Council have set out a framework for the orderly development of the area and have committed substantial capital investment for the infrastructure of the area. The number of passengers has increased from 383,000 in 1970 to 477,000 in 1979. Therefore, it is crucial that nothing be done at this stage of the port's development that would hinder its growth or be interpreted in Ireland or abroad as a lessening of the national commitment to its development.
There is a case being made at Rosslare Harbour for a limited liability company to co-ordinate the efforts of the many groups involved in Rosslare port. They are working well but as individual sections and in a rather ragged fashion. There is a definite need for co-ordination. In this connection I mention the reference to Shannon recently quoted in the British press and which would be ideal for Rosslare. I ask the Minister to take a personal interest in the excellent idea which includes the rail service. This would be a necessary element in the successful development of the area. However, the Minister should be warned that there are fixed ideas in his Department with regard to this development. Any new project will cause headaches but this project will justify any number of headaches.
There is also a suggestion that the Waterford-New Ross line be closed. This would have a detrimental effect on the viability of the Rosslare Harbour-Limerick line. Albatros Fertilisers use this line extensively and also use the station for storage. It can be said that 400 tons of fertiliser can be moved from New Ross to any Munster destination within 24 hours. It is a speedy and clean operation. The service is vital at peak periods and the closure of the section would have the effect of raising the price of fertilisers thus making Albatros more vulnerable to imported fertilisers with a resultant loss of employment in a town where unemployment is at 1,100. Unemployment has trebled in the past six years. In addition, CIE would have to lay off their own staff in the depot. The line is also used for the transport of cement and for agricultural machinery to a lesser degree. With imagination, goodwill and commitment I am sure this line could be of benefit to the economy.
The primary function of the services is to bring passengers to and from Rosslare. A feature of the traffic on the trains is the variation in the number of passengers from day-to-day and week-to-week. This poses special problems in the provision of alternative services. On a number of services five or more buses would be required to replace the train services. Special account must be taken of the fact that the trains are servicing the boats. Travellers could not plan journeys to Rosslare Harbour if they were not sure of getting to the port. This would reduce the number of passengers and would affect adversely the viability of the shipping services. Boat fares from rail passengers are in the region of £175,000. Sealink are obliged to provide an economic service and there would be a grave danger of the discontinuance of the service. This would have serious repercussions in the entire south. It would deprive the area of a major facility and would affect seriously the tourist industry generally. It would also make the area less attractive for industrial and other developments.
At this stage I appeal to all Members to support the motion. It has been debated on a number of occasions both here and elsewhere. Wisdom has always prevailed and the line has been kept open. I ask all to support the motion.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that the authority to terminate train services is vested in the Board of CIE but urges CIE to take due account of the social and economic implications for the regions affected of any such decision and of the £86 million subvention limit for 1983 as set out in the Book of Estimates published on 18 November 1982."
Let me first make it clear in relation to the motion by the Opposition that CIE are not considering the closure to either passengers or freight of the Rosslare to Dublin line. Where the line from Limerick to Rosslare is concerned the only proposal under consideration by the Board of CIE is the termination of passenger services on the Limerick Junction to Waterford section. For that reason I interrupted — and I apologise for doing so — Deputy Byrne, because much of his contribution was based on concern for freight services to and from Wexford which are not at all threatened or up for discussion.
The terms of the 1958 Transport Act passed by this House place on CIE the obligation to provide reasonable, efficient and economical transport services. Consistent with this, CIE may, subject to certain procedures, terminate uneconomic train services.
I must emphasise that I as Minister have no statutory power to compel CIE either to operate or terminate particular services. Deputies will be aware that CIE have for some time been considering the termination of passenger services on the Limerick Junction to Waterford line. My predecessor, Deputy Wilson, was familiar with this proposal and indeed in a reply which he issued on 3 December 1982, scarcely two months ago, to representations on the subject referred to CIE's statutory powers under the 1958 Act and to the need for CIE, like other semi-State bodies to take all practicable measures to reduce demands on the Exchequer, particularly in relation to services which were not adequately used by the public. He also stated that, while he would regret the withdrawal of any services, the present serious financial situation was such that consideration would have to be given to all practical options. I may say more on that. Deputy Wilson, who to my surprise signed this motion, refused to meet a deputation of Fianna Fáil TDs at their request to discuss this, whereas I have agreed to meet Deputies of all sides before a final decision is made on the matter. That, I hope, will take place shortly.
This question is now a live issue because of the need for the economies to contain CIE subvention requirements in 1983 within the limit of £86 million. CIE's deficit on subventable activities in 1982 amounted to some £106 million and I have no doubt that the requirement to live within a subvention of £86 million in 1983 means that CIE, and indeed the community generally, face some very tough decisions in the public transport arena in the current year. I must remind the House also that the subvention limit of £86 million was imposed on CIE by Deputy Wilson and the previous Government who were well aware that such a reduced subvention would inevitably necessitate hardship and perhaps unpalatable economies. I should mention that the CIE chairman had indicated to my predecessor the type of measures which would be necessary to enable the board to live within a subvention limit of £86 million which he set.
I as Minister am particularly anxious to ensure, as indeed are the Government, that no one section of the population or area of the country is asked to bear more than its fair share of the necessary economies in public transport. It is a matter for CIE to formulate the necessary proposals for living within the subvention limit of £86 million and I have asked CIE to develop an overall strategy for this purpose. It will be the Government's concern to ensure that CIE's proposals are achievable and compatible with the subvention limit.
If we could do as we liked and if our finances were unlimited we would prefer that there would be no question of reducing services. Given the real state of affairs there is no option but to take a hard look at every service area. This is not to imply that possibilities for savings or improvements elsewhere will not be examined. Deputies can be assured that the board have been instructed to see to it that no other area of spending and no section where there is room for improvement in financial performance is excluded from scrutiny. That is why I emphasise the request I have made to the board for an overall strategy, one in effect which will consider all options, to enable them to live within the subvention limit.
On account of various representations made to me by public representatives regarding the question of the termination of passenger services on the Limerick Junction-Waterford line I felt that it would be undesirable to have this particular economy measure dealt with in isolation from the overall strategy for operating within a subvention limit of £86 million in 1983. Therefore, on 14 January last I asked CIE not to take a decision on the question of issue of notice of intention to terminate passenger services on the line so as to allow time for the wider strategy to emerge and to permit the consideration of views which local interests had sought to put to me — those local interests that had been refused the time by the previous Minister to allow them to put their views to him. The board, although of course not statutorily required to do so, acceded to my request. There is, therefore, further opportunity for local interests to make whatever case they consider appropriate before a decision is taken in this matter.
I should point out that in making my request to CIE I was not taking up any position in regard to the future of the service. I myself will be meeting in the next few weeks the local Deputies and Senators and local bodies to hear their suggestions about the line. CIE argue that the numbers of passengers on the train service between Limerick Junction and Waterford are light and even in the high peak season could be comfortably catered for by two or three single-deck buses. CIE also say that on the Limerick Junction-Waterford route they already provide four bus services daily each way and would, I understand, provide an additional service between Limerick and Waterford for the specific purpose of linking up with the rail service which will continue to connect Waterford and Rosslare Harbour. It should also be noted that although Rosslare is one of our major ports of entry there has been a significant decline in the number of foot passengers requiring rail transport. CIE have indicated that the numbers involved have dropped from 142,000 in 1970 to over 58,000 in 1981, a decline of approximately 59 per cent. Not all of these, of course, would have been seeking to avail of the rail service to points beyond Waterford.
From the details which I have given Deputies will appreciate the factors which influenced CIE to develop their proposals for the termination of these services. While there is probably wide acceptance that the present services are uneconomical there appears to be a view that the services can be revived by new carriages, more investment, better marketing or better co-ordination with the ferry services. While I would accept that the rolling stock in use on the line is well past its best, I think it unlikely that upgrading the service would justify the investment involved.
On the wider issue of closure of lines, there have over the years been a series of cutbacks in rail services and, indeed, the Opposition while in Government have presided over many of these. There has always been a public outcry about the termination of railway services. It is understandable, of course, that no one likes to see a rail service terminated. The railway is regarded as a precious amenity even if it is used only occasionally and by a small fraction of the population. It would appear that there is a very deep nostalgia for the railways among a great part of our population, most of whom never use the railways. The question arises, is nostalgia enough to justify the cost involved?
Whatever the ultimate decision by the CIE board regarding passenger services on the Limerick Junction-Waterford line the line itself will remain open for freight services. This leaves open the possibility that passenger services, if discontinued, could be resumed in the future. The dilemmas which face the public transport industry are not unique to Ireland. In Britain, for example, there is a vigorous debate in progress on a new report which has been prepared on the future of the railways in that country. The report, known as the Serpell Report, suggested that railway planners are too optimistic in their view of the future and see little prospect of better financial performance on the railways. They believe that better results could be achieved by staff reductions, sale of some elements of the business of British Rail and more effective use of facilities. The report is criticised strongly by railway interests and its merits and defects are being hotly argued by commentators. Some of the issues involved have their parallels here but in many ways we are more sympathetic to the issues involved.
There is no magic formula whereby CIE will cease to be a major charge on public funds. It has long been recognised that a national railway network cannot be maintained without support from the Exchequer. More recently, CIE bus services, particularly in urban areas, have been incurring large deficits. Where Exchequer funds are involved, there must, however, be public accountability. This is a simple, well tried and long accepted principle. CIE's annual subvention requirements have been escalating at an alarming rate. I recognise this is due in part to factors outside the board's control. However, when regard is had to the public disenchantment with at least some of the board's services it becomes a matter for this House to consider what can be done to ensure that the vast sums being paid in subvention are being used in the most effective possible manner.
Due to the unfortunate and necessary adjournment of the Dáil yesterday in tragic circumstances my contribution to this debate is of necessity curtailed. I had a great deal more I wished to say. I would like to say, in conclusion to my limited contribution to this debate, that we have got to face up to the problems that confront us. As I am sure the Deputies opposite know, we have a catastrophic economic situation. There is simply no way to redeem ourselves from this situation except by major cuts in services and major increases in revenue. The £86 million subvention limit set by the previous Government and by Deputy Wilson, when Minister for Transport, represents £22 million less than the outturn of the CIE deficit for 1982. If that deficit was simply to remain the same for 1983 it would imply cuts of £22 million. Unfortunately, given that inflation is projected to be something of the order of 10 per cent and that the CIE deficit has over the last decade increased by many times the rate of inflation, we are talking of limits set which imply major cutbacks. I would be interested to hear what the former Minister for Transport has to say about how this £86 million limit, which he set is to be achieved, I do not make that as a party political point. I make it as the Minister for Transport who now has the task, on behalf of the House, and on behalf of all our citizens, to see that CIE live within that subvention. I would be very glad to hear the ideas——
That is the Minister's job now.
I did not set the limit and I would be very glad to hear the ideas of the person who did.
It is the Minister's duty to govern.
It is my duty to govern and it is my duty to listen to and to see people. I will see the public representatives and the local bodies in that area. The question is, did the person who set the limit bother to see those people?
It is my duty to second the motion so ably proposed by Deputy Hugh Byrne. First of all, I would like to welcome the announcement by the Minister that the rail line from Rosslare Harbour to Dublin is to remain. However, I am still concerned about the line from Rosslare Harbour to Limerick Junction from a freight and a passenger point of view. From the information I have it has already been discussed at CIE board level that those lines are to close.
The termination of rail services would have a serious effect on the beet industry in Wexford and Thurles. In the region of 40 per cent of beet supplied to Thurles comes from County Wexford by rail. If the farmers have to change to another system of transport beet growing will no longer be economical and as a result Thurles sugar factory will no longer be viable and approximately 600 jobs will be lost between the factory closure and spin-off services. This would be disastrous in an area where already we have a high unemployment rate. Many Wexford farmers are totally dependent on beet for survival in these difficult times. Therefore, it is essential for the economy, particularly where the south east region is concerned, that the beet industry is not affected by the proposed withdrawal of rail services.
Both lines mentioned in the motion are very important for freight services. They presently cater for roll-on-roll-off services through Waterford port for beet, cement and fertiliser transportation. To create a situation where those firms would have to make heavy expenditure to change to a new system of transportation would put many of the firms out of business with a consequent loss of jobs. If the rail lines, particularly the one on to Limerick Junction, cease to operate we will have no option but to use the roads. I have to agree with Deputy Byrne when he says that the roads in the south east region are possibly the worst in Ireland, if not the worst in Europe and with so little money available to local authorities to continue even the ordinary maintenance of the roads there is no hope that they will be brought up to the standards required for heavy trucks.
Rosslare Harbour is described by many people as the gateway to Europe. It has seen a tremendous increase in the amount of traffic going through the harbour in recent years. Large amounts of money have been invested by CIE and Wexford County Council in developing the harbour. It is very important that nothing is done at this stage to hinder further development at the port. The withdrawal of the rail services, in effect, would mean that Rosslare would no longer be acceptable as a port. In fact, I have to state that we would surely be the laughing stock of Europe if we expected people to use the port that no longer had rail services to the southern part of the country.
A number of passenger services operate to Waterford catering for people arriving by boat, people travelling to work and for children travelling to school. If this rail line is discontinued those commuters will have no alternative available to them. It must be acknowledged that the railway lines to Arklow and to Limerick Junction service passenger boats and if they are discontinued people could not avail of Rosslare Harbour to enter or leave the country. If Rosslare Harbour is to remain viable the present position of train-boat service must be maintained because if not it will have a tremendous effect on the tourist industry in the south east region. The future development of tourism is very important to this region and to County Wexford in particular. According to predictions it will be the major growth industry in the world during the next decade. It is very important that we have the facilities in order to avail of this growth industry.
It is estimated that 50,000 people came through Rosslare from different parts of Europe during the past year. The ongoing development of tourism needs a major rail service. Euro-Rail has become a major part of the tourist industry, but for Rosslare Harbour to benefit a proper rail link is both desirable and essential.
We hear talk of up to £100,000 being saved in respect of the line from Rosslare Harbour to Limerick Junction being closed. I suggest that it is the duty of the Minister to investigate the entire CIE operation in the area. I say this because of the competition there between buses and trains, because of the situation that persists whereby trains leave minutes before a passenger boat arrives from Fishguard. It is in respect of such matters that major improvements could be made in the operation of the system. I would say that £100,000 would be the least amount that could be saved if the system were operated properly.
I do not think it right that CIE should single out the line to Rosslare Harbour as not being economic. It is probably more economic than many of the other lines on which the company operate services. In making such judgments CIE must consider other factors such as the long-term consequences of the discontinuation of the service, the effects it would have on the Thurles sugar factory and on the many farmers involved in the beet industry, not to mention the consequential loss of jobs in an area already devastated by unemployment. Another factor is the effect that the withdrawal of the service would have on tourism. It is very important that part of the £86 million subvention is allocated towards keeping both rail lines operating in the future because in the Wexford area we are totally dependent on tourism and on the beet industry.
I call on the Minister, too, to investigate the possibility of the setting up of a limited liability company for Rosslare Harbour on the same lines as SFADCo and to ensure that proper freight and passenger rail services both to and from Rosslare are maintained. Rosslare Harbour has become downgraded in terms of its rail facilities in the past 10 to 15 years. The rolling stock is antiquated. We must update Rosslare as a port for the benefit both of Ireland and of Europe.
I find it intriguing that this motion should appear in the name of the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Wilson, who, I understand, a week before leaving office refused to meet a deputation to discuss this issue when he was requested to do so by his colleague, Deputy Aylward. That could be indicative of the whole attitude of the Irish people towards CIE. On the one hand we are saying that we need a particular service and on the other hand we are expected to perform on a commercial basis. I understand that only one railway system in all of Europe operates on a commercially profitable basis. That is the Swiss rail system. The Minister is to be commended for persuading the board of CIE to defer a decision to close the line in question. The whole matter must be considered on the basis of a comprehensive plan. I think that either the board of CIE or others there are making a political football out of this line and they are doing something that is bordering on political blackmail.
We are told that £100,000 would be saved by the withdrawal of the service but I suggest that such an amount is not sufficient to buy CIE's requirement of 7-UP or Coke for 12 months. The Minister is right in saying that the whole system must be considered in the context of a comprehensive plan.
We should give serious consideration to what we expect from CIE. We are talking about a social service and naturally we must expect the company to perform in as satisfactory a manner as possible. There is a problem in regard to the elimination of existing shortfalls. Perhaps that could be considered with a view to doing something about eliminating that shortfall and talking about a new agreement between CIE and the Government. As one who lives in the region in question and many of whose constituents are employed in CIE, I am aware of the disastrous effects that would result from the closure of the Rosslare to Limerick Junction line. These effects would be felt in both the mid-western and south-eastern regions.
There is a whole spin-off social factor there that would be brought into play in the event of the line being closed. The closure is being resisted by all the public bodies, the regional development authorities, the trade unions, the local authorities and the chambers of commerce. At a meeting of these bodies on 12 April last year the appeal that the passenger line would be kept open was reaffirmed. I have a particular interest in that in so far as I believe that its closure would affect the long-term prospects for tourism in the area. I say this because the line is being used increasingly by students from Europe and if these people were to be deprived of that access from Rosslare Harbour, there could be damaging long-term effects for tourism in the whole area.
The area served by this line has experienced a rapid population growth of 16 per cent in the decade leading up to 1981. If this trend continues we will be talking in terms of an increase of 16,000 in the next 18 years. Manufacturing employment in the area has increased by 20 per cent in the decade leading up to 1982 and this must continue to cater for the growing population. Any withdrawal of the rail service in question would be detrimental to the region and its infrastructure in terms of its industries and the spin-off industries involved.
Reference has been made to the beet-growing industry in the area. The withdrawal of the rail service would have the effect of putting on to the roads traffic that they are not capable of taking in their present form.
As part of the review plan I urge the Minister to think about development of a national transport policy. The party I represent subscribe to a public transport policy but we do not consider that this whole concept has been dealt with fully or fairly by any Government up to now. There was an Oireachtas review body which considered CIE in the context of an overall plan and who made some very good recommendations. For instance, they recommended that where applicable subvention payments should be made above rather than below the line in the accounts of CIE. They suggested that subvention payments would consequently be treated as receipts along with revenue from rates and fares in compiling working accounts rather than as a provision to cover losses. The committee went on to say that in practical terms the impact of such a change would be small and would not reduce the cost of running the rail service but that, nevertheless, it would be more consistent with the logic of EEC regulations. CIE and all the rail systems under their control should be looked at. The Minister is right when he asks CIE to defer their decision to give local interests an opportunity to put forward their case. I commend this line of action to the Minister. I commend the Minister for preventing the closure of the line although strictly speaking that is the legal function of CIE, not of the Minister. I am glad he used his good offices in recent times when such a decision was on the cards.
To close this passenger service, taking into account the social advantages it provides to the region concerned, would be a disaster. The West Clare railway, which would be a mammoth tourist attraction today, was closed for £19,000. To take such a decision in respect of the Limerick-Rosslare line would be looked at equally ludicrously in ten years time. The Minister should ensure that CIE take a look at themselves and ensure that their operation is made a more attractive proposition and, where possible, project a better image to the public and encourage them to use those services. There is a great deal of selling to be done by CIE in this area. I strongly oppose any closure of this line and urge the Minister and CIE to look at all the difficulties involved.
I support this motion and compliment Deputy Prendergast for his support and the honest way he expressed his views. As a man from the Limerick area he appreciates the damage that could be done if a hasty decision is taken by CIE. I agree with what he said about the West Clare line and the lines closed in Dublin. I am not here to make a political football out of this because members of all political parties in the counties involved have pulled together in recent years to support the retention of passenger and freight services on this line. The Minister said they are closing the Limerick to Rosslare line for passenger services only, but that is merely the thin end of the wedge. Successive Ministers have been too lenient in allowing CIE to close down services in many areas. If we allow this to happen in our area, it will be the beginning of the end for that line.
I would like to pay a tribute to Senator Ferris who spearheaded the campaign for the retention of this line. As a member of the Government parties I am sure he will use his influence to ensure that the Minister arrives at the right decision. Senator Ferris and all the Oireachtas Members for South Tipperary, county councils and members of corporations in South Tipperary, Limerick, Waterford and Kilkenny have met on a number of occasions in recent years and have been unanimous in their decisions——
And North Tipperary.
I am sorry, I did not mean to omit North Tipperary because you too have been involved and played your part in these meetings. All public representatives in the region were united and it would be a pity if a rash decision to close the line was taken.
We could look at other areas in which CIE are involved. There are what I call "wanderly wagons" travelling on our roads, empty buses which do not stop and empty buses which should be carrying the old age pensioners who are supposed to have free travel. These services are wasting taxpayers' money.
The local authorities have very little money to maintain the roads, never mind to improve them, and have reached a crisis situation. The traffic on our roads today is very dangerous in every sense of the word. CIE are responsible to the people and they are wasting taxpayers' money. I ask my two colleagues on the Government benches and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to use their good offices to ensure that the Minister reaches the right decision and that the people in CIE will listen to commonsense.
In my view, the argument that £x million is provided each year stands. I am not suggesting that the Minister is being mean, but any Minister in any Government will try to get value for money. I am sure CIE could make economies in other areas, instead of triggering off a situation which could have terrible effects in the areas of tourism, jobs, farming and so on, as well as making our roads more dangerous.
It has been shown what the effects of this closure would be in the Thurles area, which has a sugar industry. In 1982, 40 per cent of the beet went through the Thurles area and that amount is expected to be even higher this year. At a time of mass unemployment we have to take a serious look at our native industries if we are to provide extra jobs. I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity, but I do not think this House should allow CIE to close the passenger line. If they do they will regret it.
There are hundreds of jobs at stake not alone in the beet factory but on farms which could be affected by that decision. We should look at this problem very calmly because, as was highlighted by Deputy Prendergast, there were very expensive, hare-brained decisions taken in the past.
It is estimated that the Department of Social Welfare will be liable for £500,000 in social welfare benefits to redundant workers in the first year of the closure. Many politicians ask why we do not provide these people with jobs, which would be more satisfying for their families and themselves, rather than have them on the dole which makes many of them very unhappy.
It has been estimated that the additional cost of conveying beet to Thurles by road rather than rail will be £600,000 per annum. Even if the Carlow factory could process the beet, the additional haulage cost would be £400,000. This would have many side effects. The cost of growing beet would increase very considerably if rail transport were replaced by road haulage in the Thurles area, as has been highlighted by previous speakers. Twenty per cent of Ireland's total beet crop was grown in the County Wexford area and farmers in that county are to be complimented on providing valuable employment in the factories to which the beet is sent and also for the creation of employment in CIE. I have said before that we will have to look very seriously at the development of our basic industry, which is agriculture.
I was a little disappointed with the Minister's speech. I do not wish to be critical of him, but wish him well in his very important office and also his Ministers of State. I am sure that they will do their best. At the beginning of the debate the Minister was a little confused regarding Deputy Hugh Byrne's remarks on the effects which would follow on the closing down of the passenger service in the areas of tourism, jobs, agriculture, chaos on the roads, additional expense and unemployment. When he considers the points made by previous speakers, he will see that they have great common sense. We have, in the past, suffered from the belief that if a decision is made in the CIE boardroom, there will be very few long-term effects. However, in the rural areas their shortsighted decisions have cost jobs, the loss of tourist attractions like the West Clare railway and caused additional expenditure in avoiding the chaos of Dublin traffic. When they closed down the lines a few years ago to make a small saving, they were not looking very far ahead. Had they listened to the commonsense suggestions of the local authorities in all the effected counties representing all shades of political opinion, CIE's outlook would have been broader, their decisions more sensible and the whole nation would have benefited.
I appeal to my respected colleagues, Senator Ferris, Deputy Prendergast and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to use their good offices with the Minister concerned to avoid the fatal mistake of closing down the passenger services, leaving it open to close them down fully. If the line is closed down, in a short time the Minister for the Environment will be seeking extra millions which will put the present figure in the shade. Our roads are already falling apart because of heavy traffic and are becoming daily more dangerous. If we spare in one Department and have to spend tenfold in another, that is false economy. Please God, we will not long be in the present recessionary period, but will soon come out of it, our young people will gain employment, there will be more industry in the area and farming will generate more jobs. It would cost millions to keep the line in proper repair if it is not fully used.
The Deputy has one minute.
We hope for the end of the recession, for peace in all parts of our country and for the creation of more employment. If the line is now closed we will have to come to the Minister in a couple of years asking him to reopen and repair it, because it will then be needed.
I have just a few points to raise on the amendment before us. Being a TD from County Wexford, I am extremely interested in the retention of the passenger services on this railway line if at all possible. The importance of Rosslare Harbour to the economy of our area does not need to be stressed. Many other speakers have already mentioned that. One point, however, needs underlining. The number of foot passengers using the rail services from Rosslare has been declining and we must ask ourselves why this is so. We could request CIE to review their timetable and rationalise their services so that the trains do not depart a moment, or even up to an hour, before the arrival of the scheduled ferry services. I know that with ferry services there are delays due to weather conditions and that various other parameters have to be taken into account. However, at the moment and for some time past the scheduled departure of the trains has not corresponded with the arrival of passengers on the ferries and this is causing much adverse criticism.
There is also the fact that Rosslare is the fastest growing area in the country. At present one of the most interesting developments in the tourist business in Britain and on the Continent has been the growth of Eurorail. It is in operation here but has not had the success which it should have had. The use of Rosslare, combined with a really up-to-date passenger service to Dublin and to Limerick Junction from Rosslare, would be of tremendous benefit to all the neighbouring counties. I am one of the many TDs who have been pressing the Minister to meet a deputation to put our views and see if at all possible we could save this line. Indeed, the Minister has agreed to meet us next Thursday to listen to our different cases. Only today I was in touch with SERDO and our county development officer in County Wexford arranging for them to be here to put as strong a case as possible outlining why the retention of all of the passenger services is essential. I will do all in my power to see that CIE rural passenger services are maintained.
I should like to thank Deputy Wilson for having allowed Deputy Avril Doyle say a few words on this motion. My contribution will be rather brief.
In looking at transport needs and policy it must be remembered that we live in a world which is changing at an enormous rate. If transport is to serve the community and to facilitate social development it must respond to all of these changes. The problem for everybody concerned with railways — whether as politicians, managers, engineers, trade unionists or onlookers — is that the radical changes over the past 50 years have led to a dramatic fall in the pattern of demand for the railways and a consequent decline in their financial fortunes. The railways still have many advantages and attractions for particular transport needs — for moving very large numbers, for bulk commodities and for dangerous substances. There are arguments related to safety, environmental factors and energy utilisation that are also relevant.
On the other side there is no way to demonstrate, in the circumstances of today, that it is possible to operate a railway system on a commercially viable basis. This problem is not peculiar to Ireland. It applies equally to Britain, France, Germany, Japan and indeed virtually every country in the world. It means that the maintenance and operation of a rail network depends on a very substantial measure of financial support from the Exchequer — and that means from the taxpayer. It is essential that any discussion of railway policy or of individual railway services should face this problem frankly. There is no advantage in ignoring or masking this inescapable feature of railway operation.
This brings up the question of our inconsistent attitude towards transport users. We tend to take up different attitudes depending on whether we see ourselves as motorists, pedestrians, public transport users or taxpayers. Most of us of course are all of these at different times and we naturally seek to have the best of all worlds. We advocate the retention of an extensive public transport system, including a rail network, but resist efforts to persuade us to leave our cars at home. We express dissatisfaction about an inadequate level of service but complain about the magnitude of the investment costs and operating subventions. We criticise the restriction of competition in the road freight sector but expect the railways to continue to provide freight services. Finally we reserve the right not to use at all the public transport services which are provided for us.
Governments and transport planners everywhere are faced with critical problems about the railways. Different Governments have tried different solutions. In Northern Ireland, for example, where distances are relatively short, policy has been based mainly on the road network leading to the closure of all railways except a very small and basic network. Here — as in Britain — there have been closures over the years but we have endeavoured to preserve a system that would serve the principal centres, based mainly on a radial network. Despite the progress of CIE, under successive Governments, in pursuing efficiency the railways are constantly confronted by problems of huge investment needs and increasing operating deficits.
This is just part of the background against which we must consider the subject of this motion and everything that it implies for CIE, for our transport services and for the country. It is good to see that Deputies are prepared to discuss these difficult matter constructively.
From one end of the year to the other a service like the train between Limerick Junction and Rosslare trundles along without either notice or much support from the people it is meant to serve. Except in the peak season the train only has a busload aboard and really cannot justify itself in financial terms. It is, at least, debatable whether there is sufficient justification to warrant retention of such services on the basis of vague social and economic considerations. However, the moment there is any threat to that kind of service it becomes vital to everybody within any distance of the line and generates a mass of representations involving local people, Government and CIE itself, in a welter of activity which may be both futile and wasteful and which might never have been called for if the service had been given the support it deserved.
Many of these issues might never have arisen if our public transport services were adequately supported. Let me declare quite plainly that the Government are in favour of promoting and developing public transport and that the strategies in the transport field to be pursued by the Department of Transport will generally favour the professional carrier. But these strategies cannot be developed or brought to fruition without support from transport users, from local representative bodies and from CIE itself.
It is incumbent particularly on local bodies to take cognisance of existing public transport services which are available and to see them as benefits to their areas rather than waiting until they are threatened with withdrawal for want of support. In these difficult times, with energy costs in particular at levels that could not have been imagined ten years ago, the most economical means of transport are likely to be in well-supported public transport services, And well supported public transport services will also pay off in terms of reduced congestion on the roads, more safety for people who have to be on the roads, including pedestrians and cyclists, and less pollution in our towns, cities and countryside. The role of CIE will be to support the Government in renewed efforts to ensure that the services it provides are adequate and give satisfaction.
On the other hand services which are superfluous will have to be listed for termination. We can no longer afford the luxury of subsidising services for which there is little or no real need. We must be prepared to examine this aspect in a rational manner and not be overwhelmed by emotive arguments. We have to recognise that transport requirements have been greatly altered by the prevalence of the private motor car. There was in 1980, one car for every 4.6 people, as against one for every 10.2 people about 15 years ago. As regards rail services, arguments can be advanced on grounds of energy conservation, the oil crisis and so on, but even at this level, the value of lightly used trains is questionable.
In conclusion I should like to refer to some opinions expressed from the other side of the House, particularly when people talked about the closure of the freight services. There is no question of the closure of the freight service. One would begin to wonder whether that continued expression of opinion from the benches opposite was not the proposal that they intended putting into operation had they remained in Government. When opportunity arises perhaps Deputy Wilson would express an opinion on it so that at least the Deputies sitting beside him would understand that there is no threat to the freight service in that area.
Indeed it would be fair to say that proposed closures of this nature have arisen before. Regardless of when or from where they have emanated one might find oneself on this or that side of the House. It might well be a good idea if we politicians, rather than being critical of one another in regard to proposed closures of this nature, or indeed in regard to many of the closures that have taken place many years ago, would come together, if not politically then as a unit, to devise some sort of comprehensive transport policy so that we might agree on the closure of certain uneconomic lines, or we might, as politicians in Opposition always advocate, retain services which are totally uneconomic or open services which have been closed for years.
I heard one Deputy talking about the West Clare scene. In the constituency I represent, the line to Connemara was closed years ago. That was the line between Galway and Clifden. There are many people who say that if the line was in operation at present it would be a big tourist attraction in the area. Rather than being critical of one another and of a decision which may be made by this Government if we came together and gave good service all around we would not waste the time of the House.
The Minister has agreed to meet the people involved and have a chat about this. It would be unfair to make a comparison between the present Minister and the previous one, Deputy Wilson, who refused to meet a deputation. In a letter which he wrote to a member of his party, Liam Aylward, on 3 December 1982 he stated: "You are no doubt aware that CIE are empowered under the Transport Act 1958 to terminate uneconomic rail services subject to certain statutory requirements and procedures". In the last paragraph of the letter he stated: "As the primary decision regarding the future of the line is a matter for the board I do not consider that meeting a deputation would serve any useful purpose at this time". He said he had taken note of his representations and would pass them on to CIE. I am sure that as a result of the previous Minister passing on these representations to CIE and of the present Minister meeting a deputation, there is a good chance that the request in the motion may be acceded to. If that would serve all the interests which were mentioned tonight it would be of benefit to that part of the country.
I congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on his elevation to this position. I also congratulate the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, on his appointment as Minister for Transport, and Deputy Donnellan, although from my reading of the record of the House he does not seem to have been given any role in the Department of Transport. As far as I am aware his role is with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
For the information of the Deputy, I deal principally with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
That is what I thought. I thank my fellow Deputies on this side of the House for making a very good case for maintaining the Rosslare-Limerick Junction line. The point was made that the Deputies concerned were talking about freight and in his simple and devious western way the Minister said that perhaps the reason they spoke about freight was that they found that their own Minister was thinking of discontinuing freight services.
The reason being the Deputy intended to.
The Deputy made it clear that it was a director of CIE who mentioned the possibility of discontinuing freight and if a director does not know what may be in danger I do not know who would know. The Minister said that full competence rested with CIE in this matter.
I do not need to reiterate the arguments advanced from this side of the House. Whether it is freight or passenger a strong case was made for maintaining the service. There are implications for the population and for industries in the area. This argument holds whether we are dealing with freight or road passenger services. The roads are being hammered by vehicles which are much heavier than was ever envisaged. I was in the area referred to and made an extensive tour of the roads. I fully accept the arguments made on this side of the House.
A very good argument was made on the basis of the economy. Deputy Hugh Byrne made the point that the cost of transporting goods and passengers by rail may be substantially lower than the cost of transporting them by road. With regard to freight he said that 50,000 gallons of diesel oil by rail did the work of 180,000 gallons on the road. This is very important. We hear that there may be a reduction in the cost of oil but it is important to make the best possible use of oil which for the moment we must import.
The argument was also strongly advanced that tourism would be affected by any deterioration in the rail service. I am glad that Deputy Prendergast fully supported maintaining all passenger services in this area. In doing so he was consistent with the Labour Party manifesto of 1982 which promised that the Labour Party would dedicate themselves to maintaining rail. We are confident we have strong allies in the Labour Party in maintaining all passenger services in that area. Suggestions were made that additional passenger facilities should be made available in the area mainly concentrating on the town of Clonmel, which has a population of 14,000-15,000, to give them a link in to the Dublin rail line. I am sure that with the backing of the Labour Party, the strong arguments advanced on this side of the House and the commitment to provide social amenities, consideration will be given to this suggestion. I was a little disappointed with the Minister for Transport——
The Deputy has one minute left.
He has three minutes by that clock.
If I get into that argument I will lose more than a minute. I regret that the Minister interrupted Deputy Byrne and that the cause of the interruption was that he had not read the motion put down before the House.
He apologised for the interruption.
It is not his business to come in here and whimper about the £86 million available to CIE for subventable activities. It is his business to consider the motion we put before the House and to indicate whether in the allocation of this £86 million he will take steps to see that this passenger service is not interfered with.
I regret that I have not more time to deal with the meanderings of the Minister. It is not his business to whimper; it is his business to make decisions and to see to it that this service is not interfered with by CIE. I appreciate the point that he has not statutory authority either to initiate or terminate services but I know the board of CIE would listen to him if he indicated to them that he wanted the £86 million spent in such a way that the service would not be interfered with.
Question put: "That the amendment be made."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, Joe.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Prionsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett (Dun Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies B. Ahern and Briscoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.