In deciding to raise this matter on the Adjournment I wish to state that the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a question on Thursday last, showed great concern for the position and made an appeal to all concerned to bend every nerve to solve the problem of this school transport service strike. Unfortunately the media did not carry his appeal. It was because of the urgency of the matter that I am raising it now in the hope that, by having it discussed here on the Adjournment, pointing out what is happening and making a cri de coeur here at this stage, the dispute might be settled and something done about it.
Parents are very concerned, as is evidenced by a series of letters which Deputies on all sides of the House have received and by telephone calls they also received. Deputies are aware that over the past few years a policy of amalgamation of schools has been in progress in order to provide better facilities for students in primary and post-primary schools. As a result of this children have to travel longer distances than hitherto. They depend on this transport provided at the expense of the Department of Education to reach their schools.
Any interference with the school transport service is a very serious matter. Most of the comment in the public Press has been related to the public examinations. People have said —and there is a certain amount of truth in this—that the public examinations cannibalise the education system. To a certain extent this is true. Nevertheless the examinations are important. They may be far more important in the eyes and minds of the people sitting them than in the eyes of more seasoned members of the community. Anything that interferes with their studies, particularly in this stage of the academic year when revision is the order of the day and when the pupils are making up for lost time, is to be decried.
If we can find any means for dealing with the interruption of school transport we should try to use them. The emphasis on the examinations puts the spotlight on the post-primary students. There is also a serious problem in regard to primary pupils. I might even say that the problem in regard to such pupils is more serious. My own nephews and nieces, who are in a country parish where the schools were closed down, are now attending a central school which is serving that area and are affected by this strike. The post-primary students can take a chance and try to thumb a lift. Because of their more tender years the younger pupils are in a much more difficult position. At the moment many families have stopped trying to get the children to school, particularly those families which cannot provide, in unison with other families in the neighbourhood, daily transport for the children.
This is a very important element. It should cause us anxiety. The children of our poorer citizens affected have little chance of getting to school at the present. There is a social problem here also. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, when speaking at Question Time on this matter and answering a question put by Deputy J. O'Leary from Kerry, stated that certain moves were afoot to settle the dispute. He said that unofficial disputes or strikes of any kind could not be condoned and did not come within the normal procedures for settling industrial disputes. We all subscribe to that general principle.
My difficulty is that I feel if one sticks to protocol and to certain methods of working the children will be the losers. I said on Thursday also that a dispute like this which keeps pupils away from school—no matter at what level they are—is something quite different from an industrial dispute. By paying overtime and working longer hours or extra shifts production can be equalised later, but as far as a child in school is concerned, either at primary or post-primary level, the time lost is time lost forever. It cannot be made up. The situation is different from that in an industry. The protocol procedures and structures invented for dealing with industrial disputes do not apply in regard to schools. They do not apply in so far as the effects of the dispute are concerned.
I am not quite sure whether this dispute has been declared an official one since last Thursday. The Parliamentary Secretary is now indicating that it has not. I had hoped that it had been so declared, if this would have facilitated dealing with it. Obviously it has not been declared official and that makes the position still more parlous. The people involved in the strike are part-time workers. If they were employed by CIE at a certain figure some years ago I do not see why that figure should not be increased now, just as other workers have had salaries and wages increased. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has not any competence in this matter although if he brings pressure strongly to bear on CIE a solution might be found.
Deputy Browne mentioned that there had been a long strike in Wexford. This particular trouble is now added to that. The disruption in school life in that particular area is very serious. I want to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary and to his Minister to harness all the influence that they undoubtedly have and which attaches to their respective offices to approach CIE privately, if that is the way to do it, and to soften them. They might approach the union. I understand there is now a union catering for these drivers. They might talk bluntly to the union itself and emphasise the points I have already made about a dispute like this involving children being quite different from a dispute involving the normal industrial worker. They should be told that there is a duty on them as citizens to settle their dispute as quickly as possible and to make transport available for children both at primary and post-primary level. The children are deprived of such transport at the moment.
