Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 May 1975

Vol. 281 No. 7

Adjournment Debate: - School Transport Service.

Mr. Crinion

The family referred to in Parliamentary Question No. 247 of May 22 came to County Meath on March 5th this year. There were then two school-going children, one aged eight and one four-and-a-half, in the family but the parents were informed by the authorities at Castle-knock national school that because of overcrowding only one of the children, the older, could be accommodated but that the younger one would be taken in July. The parents were satisfied with this arrangement and the school bus began coming by the house so as to pick up the older child. There were also three other children living on the road who availed of this service but at the end of April the parents were told that it was not possible to continue this arrangement and, consequently, the children would have to make their own way to the main road where they would be collected.

The eight-year-old child must travel three miles to the main road and the road on which he lives is one on which there is a fair amount of traffic. When he reaches the main Dublin-Cavan road he must cross to the other side and continue for another 300 yards to the Fairyhouse junction where he boards the bus. In the evening the bus comes down a little further but still leaves about 2.8 miles for the child to travel home. It is very dangerous for a child of this age to have to travel so far along this busy and twisty road but the situation will be much worse for the four-and-a-half-year-old child. Regarding the other three children on the road the problem is not so great because in their case the distance to the pick-up point is only about a mile and they have been used to making the journey as they are older children. The father of the two children I am referring to is away from home from Monday to Friday. His wife does not drive a car so they have no means of transporting the children to the main road. The child does not cycle but, in any case, it would be dangerous for children so young to cycle along the road concerned and they would have to go about two miles before coming to the houses where the other three children live.

I understand in the case of a Church of Ireland school that the Department sanctioned transport for an area where there are five school-going children. With the younger child I am referring to going to school in July there will be five children from the area attending school. This younger child had been going to school before the family came to Meath so in his case there is a break.

Since special consideration is given to Church of Ireland children I am asking that the same concession be granted to these children. A school transport system was in operation for Church of Ireland children before the implementation of the general scheme but the parents subscribed a certain amount towards it.

Minister for Education (Mr. R. Burke)

The services provided under the free school transport system are arranged as a network of routes serving each school area. The best possible service consistent with economy and reasonable journey time is provided. However, due to the nature of terrain and scattered population and in view of the cost involved, it is not possible to provide a door-to-door service for pupils. Transport services cannot be set up for small scattered groups of children. There should be a sufficient number in a distinct locality who are attending the nearest school to secure that the average daily number of eligible children conveyed each term is of a minimum figure.

Because of the smaller numbers and the more scattered distribution of the Protestant population a special scheme operates for them. The age and distance qualifications are the same as those for children attending schools under Catholic management but, instead of the minimum of ten specified in the general scheme, services are provided if there is a sufficient number of children in a distinct locality who are attending their nearest suitable national school to ensure that the average number conveyed daily would be at least seven, or exceptionally, five. It is in accordance with this particular scheme the transport service is being provided for the child concerned in the question.

The cost of the free transport scheme has increased enormously since its introduction—from £2.1 million in 1968-69, the first full year of operation, to well over £7 million in the current financial year. This cost results from the provision of services on the basis of the published regulations. Any amendment of these which would result in substantial extra cost could not in present financial circumstances be contemplated. We are discussing a particular case here tonight and may I say to the Deputy and to the House that the cost of granting a concession of this nature is pretty substantial, over and above what the service is already costing.

Let me say that it should not be forgotten that the scheme was introduced in the first place to help those who are a long distance from school and children under ten less than two miles from school and children over ten less than three miles from school are not entitled to free transport at all. There are, however, many children who are walking or cycling these distances to school and many thousands more who are entitled to free transport who have to walk or cycle to the bus route to meet the bus. The child involved in this case is therefore one of many who have to make their own way for up to three miles either to school or to the nearest pick-up point on the bus route.

I would not wish this discussion to be expanded into a debate on the whole policy relating to school transport. As I said, the scheme is expensive and is in my view not perfect in its application to the individual circumstances of all cases. It is to be anticipated that its expansion on a graduated basis over a period of time will bring its advantages to a greater number of pupils and allow further improvements in the conditions governing the administration of the service. I can assure the Deputy, and I am sure he knows this, that the Parliamentary Secretary would wish to have the scheme operated on the most flexible basis possible. The Government are fully conscious of the value of the service to pupils in first and second level education, many of whom may not have the opportunity of proceeding to third level, but if they do so, will owe the opportunity in large measure to the existence of a suitable transport service to primary and secondary schools. But I have to make the point and to insist that the regulations are of general application and regulations of general application are fundamental to the satisfactory administration of the scheme and they cannot be departed from in their application to individual cases. I recognise nevertheless that in relation to the administration of the scheme, the aim should be to achieve the maximum degree of flexibility and that the difficulties of individual families should be considered as sympathetically as possible and I can assure the House that such has always been the approach of the Parliamentary Secretary.

I have listened to the case put forward by the Deputy reasonably, and it is a great attraction to a Minister for Education to have a case put reasonably to him, that this service should be extended. While I cannot promise here and now that the decision already made may be altered, I undertake to have the matter sympathetically examined to see if there is something in what the Deputy put to us tonight which was not adverted to when the decision was being made and I shall then communicate my final decision to the Deputy in a matter of a few days.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.05 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 30th May, 1975.