asked the Minister for Education whether he will amend the regulation withdrawing primary school transport from children when they attain ten years of age.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - School Transport.
121.
A child who has. attained ten years of age must reside at least three miles from the nearest suitable school in order to be eligible for free transport to school. The effect of the Deputy's proposal would be to reduce the required minimum distance to two miles for such children.
I do not feel that this would be warranted or that the taxpayers should be called on to meet the large expenditure which would be involved.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that, where school transport is being provided children living on one side or the other of the three miles limit, who were carried until they reached the age of ten, should still be carried if there is space available for them on the bus, rather than charging parents a substantial amount?
As I indicated on another occasion, we would be perfectly willing to provide the transport if they were prepared to use the bus as fare-paying passengers. Once it is charged in relation to any child, be he 100 yards or half a mile outside the limit in any area. Deputies know it would have to be charged for the whole country. I would have to come in here looking for an extra £500,000 and I wonder how that would be received.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that by charging the children just outside the three miles limit he is not mulcting the Department in any way? In fact, he would be giving extra money to CIE, money they need, and at the same time he would be improving the position for both CIE and these unfortunate children. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument is fallacious because surely he could continue to arrange that the children who are normally carried on the bus up to ten years of age would continue to be carried if there was room available for them.
As I have said, I am very anxious to meet all reasonable requests in this matter, but it has been my experience that what is applied in one area is known at the other end of the country immediately. The number of precedents quoted would involve my seeking sanction to introduce this and looking for an extra £350,000, or thereabouts, in the current year. I do not think the Deputy would be prepared to accept that.
It would not cost the Department one shilling and what the Parliamentary Secretary has said is therefore incorrect.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it is a particularly callous thing that little children should be passed by the school bus, especially little children who have to walk long distances, in an area in which the buses are to all intents and purposes empty? Could he not make provision to have these children collected where there is accommodation on the buses?
The use of the words "callous" and "little children" touches my heart and everyone else's heart but the expressions are not quite appropriate and there is no need to shed tears over a scheme which is easing the burden on children. Where-ever there is room the Department will not do the callous thing and pass little children; if there is room they will be accepted as fare-paying passengers. If there is not room the distance qualification must operate.
And if they have not got the money they must walk.
Is it not callous to pass children especially in very inclement weather?