asked the Minister for Education if he will state, in respect of a child (details supplied) in County Tipperary when he will be in a position to secure a reply from CIE regarding the suggested re-routing of the school bus to facilitate this child in accordance with representations made on 1st February, 1971.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - School Bus Service.
51.
The CIE report has now come to hand. On consideration of the report and having regard to the nature of the child's disability I have decided to extend the transport service to convey her from her home to the national school which she is attending.
52.
asked the Minister for Education whether the child aged six years of a deserted and ailing mother (details supplied) in County Tipperary can be accommodated on the CIE bus to Tipperary town, which is four miles away, rather than be compelled to walk three miles to Lattin national school; and why he has been unable to secure a decision from CIE on the matter since the making of representations on 23rd February, 1971.
It is understood that there is a vacancy on the post-primary school bus to Tipperary town on which this child could be accommodated. CIE have been informed that she may avail herself of this service.
53.
asked the Minister for Education if he will review the primary school transport scheme so that similar facilities can be provided for all children irrespective of their ages.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply on 16th December, 1970, to a similar question in regard to this matter. I have nothing to add to that reply.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not accept that it is a peculiar arrangement, set down here in the document issued to us a few weeks ago, that because a primary school pupil has attained the age of 10 years and is residing within three miles of a school, he must leave the bus or the school transport vehicle and walk even though in many instances in rural Ireland the vehicle is half empty? Would he not accept that it would not be unreasonable to extend the facilities provided at present for children under 10 to all those attending primary schools? Very few children over 12 years of age now attend primary schools. This is a ridiculous regulation. On a bad morning in winter, with the bus half empty, the driver's job is in danger if he takes a child of over 10 years to school. That is ridiculous. This is just as important as what we spent a half hour on a while ago. Will the Parliamentary Secretary now review the primary school transport scheme so that similar facilities can be provided for all children irrespective of their ages? Will he not agree that it is very unfair and unjust to ask pupils who are over two miles from the primary school and who are over 10 years of age to go on foot even though there is sufficient room for them on the transport vehicle?
I accept the Deputy's concern but for me to answer all the matters he has raised would involve a full discussion on this. Nonetheless, I think he is being naive in the extreme when he suggests that there is no problem involved in this matter, that it is just a question of filling the empty spaces. The same misunderstanding appears to have occurred in the mind of a colleague of his, Deputy Tully, whose concern I also appreciate because he asked: "If there is room on the bus why not take the children?" The Deputies appear to work on the assumption that there would be no younger children coming of school age, that only those who are on the bus and who are qualified for attending school would continue to apply for school transport. While these children would continue on the buses, of course, younger children who were hitherto not on buses would be seeking other places and therefore it would cost extra money to provide services for all.
The second point is that this transport scheme at post-primary level was never intended to provide transport for all the children. It was intended, and I think the evidence is that it is doing this, to alleviate the hardship on children who have distances to travel to school in regard to their age. For that reason it did seem reasonable that children under 10 would not be placed in the same category, having regard to their physical strength and durability, as children over 10. It is for that reason that this distinction was introduced. If the Deputies feel that there is no problem involved in this matter beyond putting them on the bus I should like to refer to that memo I circulated to them and to remind them that the average cost for fare payers at primary school level is something of the order of 23p per week and for this if there is room on a bus children will be conveyed. That is on the basis of an individual applicant; if there is a family application it is considerably less. Having regard to the total cost of the transport scheme which is, in this year, of the order of £3½ million, Deputies will have to accept reasonably and objectively, looking at the tax situation of which they are not unmindful, that in fact the present service is an adequate and very fair service and is not one that is discriminating against anyone.
We did not know that Moses had come back with the regulations on tablets of stone and issued them to CIE. The stupid way in which the school bus service is run is no credit to anybody connected with it and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that.
The reason they were issued, on my instructions, to both CIE and to Deputies in such detail was so that some of the misapprehensions and misunderstandings that arise in this House every day, and locally, apparently as often, would be cleared up and that Deputies themselves in a responsible way could see what the purpose of the scheme is, what the regulations are and what the limitations on it are.
Would the Parliamentary Secretatry explain why the fact that the bus might be full of smaller children in a few years time should keep existing children who are finding it difficult to travel off the bus when the empty bus passes them by on the road? Let us not be too ridiculous.
There is no question of keeping children off an empty bus. What I am saying to Deputy Murphy and Deputy Tully, who seemed to imply before that if children up to ten years of age are on a bus service this year there is no reason when they become 11 that you could not continue to accommodate them because you have the same children——
I never said that.
I do not wish to engage in discussion on this because it is not a matter of great significance.
We will talk about it afterwards if the Parliamentary Secretary can produce the evidence.
The evidence is here.
The evidence is not there.
According to the Parliamentary Secretary's theory a child of nine years and 364 days is incapable of travelling more than two miles to school while a child of over ten years is quite capable of doing so. Is he not aware that in many rural districts this kind of service is provided not by CIE but by private hire? Surely to ask to eliminate the age regulation is reasonable? Is he not even prepared to consider it?
I am prepared and determined as my predecessor has been and the Government also to ensure that the system which has been introduced and which has progressively been available to increasing numbers will continue to be so available. The primary school transport in September, 1967, catered for 11,000; from September, 1968, for 20,500; from September, 1969, for 28,500; from September, 1970, for 39,000 and from April, 1971, for 45,300. If the Deputy is suggesting to me that these figures imply that I or anybody concerned is unaware of the need to transport extra children he is flying in the face of the facts.
The statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on the availability of transport provided one is in a position to pay does not apply to the rural services. That only applies where there is a regular CIE service. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary accepts that most children leave primary school now at the age of 12? Why not do away with this regulation that is causing so much friction? Surely we would be able to find the money to pay for it? It is the taxpayer who will pay and in sparsely populated areas such as West Cork no extra cost would be involved because the vehicles are capable of taking the numbers.
The Deputy cannot honestly say that there would be no extra cost involved.