The time for this debate has been somewhat curtailed. Deputy Blaney will have 16½ minutes and the Minister of State replying will have 8½ minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - School Transport Strike.
I will not require 16 minutes for what I have to say. The hardship caused to the children, particularly in Donegal, is very real. What worries me most is that school transport has not been operating in Donegal since Monday week, although it has been operating spasmodically in other parts of the country. Efforts are being made to try to overcome the disadvantages of the strike by getting as many children as possible to school but some children have no means of getting to school, even on a temporary basis, and they are being deprived of their schooling. What bothers me most is that, if the majority of the children are avoiding the worst effects of the strike through the extra efforts of their parents, the Department are, directly or indirectly, saving money in that they do not have to pay for transport during the strike. Obviously there is no urgency on the part of the authorities to come to terms with the cause of the strike and bring about an early settlement. I am sure the Minister of State will not deny that that is a factor which could create, and may well have created a situation in which the strike may last longer.
I have endeavoured in various ways to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister and the Department so that they might start trying to settle the strike not only in Donegal but everywhere else as well. In the last analysis the losers in this situation can only be the children who are being deprived of their schooling. The children who are managing to get to school are only doing so through the expense and inconvenience of their own parents and the parents of neighbouring children.
I would ask the Minister of State not to look upon this matter as one that can be left to find its own solution as a result of lack of pressure in the situation outlined by me. It is a very serious and urgent situation. There is no substitute for the intervention of the Minister. It is his responsibility. I see the Minister of State shaking his head. I hope he is not denying that it is the responsibility of the Department because it truly is. If the Minister and the Department do not move, who is going to move? Without going into the merits or otherwise of the claim of the contractors, the Minister may have an answer to a few relevant questions. Do CIE, for whom the Minister ultimately pays, get as much or more for their direct service than those who work for them under contract? I suspect that the contractors have the worst runs and get the worst money. Even if that were not true, it is true that CIE, unfortunately, can have their losses replenished from the taxpayer's pocket. Since CIE have to be subsidised, the contractors should be paid more. I do not make that observation from any specific knowledge that I have, nor am I in a position to get that knowledge, as is the Minister. The Minister should consider the matter. It has been reported that the transport operators have been offered a 6 per cent increase, an offer which does not meet the reality of the situation at present.
I urge the Minister of State and the Minister for Education to come to grips with this matter. CIE and the contractors are only at variance in doing the work of the Department for the children. There is no way in which the Minister and his Department can opt out and stand aside and say that this is a matter between the contract operators and CIE. It is nothing of the sort; it is a matter of the children's welfare and education and the Department of Education. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State to bend their energies in the direction of getting these people together—if necessary knocking their heads together—and getting the strike settled. It cannot be regarded with equanimity. There may be a temptation to do this because the Department are saving money while the strike goes on. That may not come into the Minister's calculations but it relieves him of the urgency if most of the children are getting to the schools and are not lacking education because of the strike; the strikers are short of money that they would be paid and therefore the Department pay out less than heretofore. That is why I believe it was urgently necessary to bring the position publicly to the attention of the House. On that basis I put it to the Minister—the children first, last and all the time. I shall finish at that. I know Deputy Enright also has a word to say and the few minutes left of my time with the agreement of the Chair I am happy to give him.
As far as I am aware CIE are the agents of the Department of Education and they have made a 6 per cent increase in their offer to the minibus owners. CIE offered the 6 per cent because the consumer price index has risen by 6.2 per cent between mid-May 1977 and mid-May 1978. The position as regards those undertaking school transport is that their insurance increased last March in some instances by between 35 per cent and 50 per cent. We all remember the furore there was when one company increased premiums. The vast majority in the PAMBO suffered such increases. CIE increased their own rates as we know by about 20 per cent in May of this year. Those two figures alone prove that the minibus owners find it uneconomic to undertake the work and discharge these duties.
There is a strike in Donegal in this connection. I am from the Laois-Offaly constituency and all across that area the majority of those engaged in school transport runs have not tendered for renewal of their contracts yet. In fact CIE are doing the job themselves at present at a cost double and sometimes treble the cost when it was done by private operators. The Minister can check these figures which can be vouched for. I want the Minister to be fully aware that it is not enough to say that CIE are his agents. I believe that is what he told the private bus owners on Tuesday, 3 October, when he said he had no power to interfere with the administration of the transport system or impose any amendment of the terms of the contract documents. If I employ somebody to do a job he is my agent and I should be in a position to ensure that the terms under which I employ him to do something are properly carried out. The Minister cannot escape by saying CIE are agents for him. It is on the Minister's shoulders that responsibility rests and on nobody else. I ask the Minister to do his duty in this matter and see that the thousands of people providing school transport at an economic rate get fair play. At present they are not getting it; it is not an economic proposition for them.
These contracts come up for renewal each year and are tendered for. If the tenders are not competitive they are out. The operators must be competitive and the operation must be economic. We must ensure they get fair play. I want an assurance from the Minister that those involved in the Donegal strike and those who have not tendered but have been carrying on this service for years will not be victimised when the present situation is cleared up. It is important that the Minister should say this in the House. These people want to be met half way. Otherwise, the school transport system which is now creaking badly—it has ceased in some places—will be in a very serious position. The present position must be cleared up as soon as possible. That is essential. It is completely unsatisfactory with CIE providing the service in some cases, other people in other places, and it is not adequate for the children. We must try to ensure that the services the children get are not adversely affected.
I speak also on behalf of the private bus owners, their wives and families, all endeavouring to live by providing these services. None of them makes a lot of money; they are barely able to keep going. I believe they should get the increase they are seeking. Six per cent is not enough. I do not think the reference to the consumer price index is justifiable. When this matter was being dealt with in the Central Statistics Office there was reference to the reduction of road tax. In fact, school transport services do not benefit from the reduction in road tax. I believe they have a genuine case and that the Minister should meet them fairly on this important issue immediately in conjunction with CIE so that a reasonable agreement can be worked out.
May I ask the Minister two or three questions? Why was the period May to May chosen when the consumer price index was at its lowest and when two of the items responsible for bringing down the index at that time were the removal of rates and the removal of car tax, neither of which have any bearing on the cost of running a bus? If you were to use the CPI, why was not the August to August figure chosen which would be the most up-to-date one and which was 8.2? CIE applied for price increases last February or March and these were granted. Will the Minister say if they applied for an increase in the price of their school transport service then, whether it was granted and if so what percentage was allowed to CIE in this regard?
I am happy to have the opportunity of putting on the records of the House the position regarding the Department and CIE as its agent and the school transport scheme. The position that obtains now is the position that obtained in 1968, 1969 and 1970 and in 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977. Apparently it was not challenged by anybody in 1974. Because of the displeasure which PAMBO felt with CIE they took issue with CIE and made representations to my Department as they had made representations to my predecessor. The position was explained then as I am about to explain it now.
CIE administer a school transport scheme as agents for the Minister for Education. This has been the arrangement since the inception of the scheme. CIE arrange to provide conveyance to their schools for children eligible for free transport. Where special services are necessary they either employ buses financed by the Department of Education, with ownership vested in the company, or contract with private transport operators to supply vehicles and drivers to do the work. Where school services are provided by private owners, contracts are negotiated annually by CIE with each individual contractor. One standard form of agreement is used by CIE for all contracts for this work.
The Department of Education are not involved in the negotiation of contracts with private operators. This is a matter purely between CIE and individual contractors and, I repeat, this has been the case since the inception of the scheme. CIE went about negotiating the school transport contracts in the usual way this year and concluded agreements with the great majority of contractors in the course of the summer vacation. A small number of contractors around the country were unwilling to do so because of their dissatisfaction with certain elements of the contract.
At the commencement of the present school year, here and there around the country individual transport operators who normally provided school transport failed to resume the service. Following discussions with CIE others agreed to accept the contract as negotiated. A few private operators dropped out of the school transport business and alternative arrangements had to be made for the transport of those children to school. At the end of September the situation was that by and large the scheme was operating normally.
In Donegal, while services continued to be provided, 27 of the private contractors engaged in school transport work did not enter into formal agreement with CIE in respect of the current school year. However, they were among those who continued to bring children to school. It is not correct to say that in Donegal children are not being brought to school at the moment. CIE and the Lough Swilly service carry 60 per cent of the students to school at the moment. Ninety-four contractors, 48 of whom are on strike at the moment, to use that term, carry the balance.
The position obtaining in Donegal now is that only 48 contractors are not working in accordance with the terms of the scheme offered to them by CIE. If all the children affected were to stay at home the number affected would range somewhere around 2,000. But I understand the parents of those children have made other arrangements and the bulk of them are going to school. Therefore, it is not right to say Donegal children are not going to school because of the disagreement which has arisen between CIE and the people they employ.
Deputy Enright indicated that people have not accepted the contracts. I should like to tell Deputy Enright that 1,016 contractors have signed contracts with CIE in respect of the scheme and are operating in accordance with the terms of the agreement drawn up between themselves and CIE. Since 3 October——
There are 1,016 who have signed up but something like 622 did not sign.
I do not know where the Deputy got that figure.
The figures are: minibuses 1,370, medium buses 52, large buses 200, and the total of contracted vehicles is 1,622.
If the Deputy wants to table a specific question in connection with those numbers I will be happy to answer it. I am indicating to the House that at the moment 1,016 private contractors have accepted the terms of the agreement offered to them by CIE. In Donegal, half of the 94 private contractors who were unhappy originally about the terms offered to them have resumed operation in the past week and are now transporting children to school.
The Minister knows why.
I hope better counsel has prevailed.
Necessity. These people are not like CIE or any other State body. They have to live.
I share the Deputy's concern and the concern of Deputy Enright and Deputy Barry that any disruption affecting the normal educational pursuits of our children should occur. Irrespective of what Deputies might say, I know they appreciate that, in circumstances where neither I nor my Minister has been a party to any agreement drawn up between CIE and private contractors, we cannot tell CIE how to do their business.
People are responsible for their agents. That is a well-known legal fact.
I should not like to go back and find a base for indicating to the Deputy that there were occasions when his preparedness to accept that principle was not as it is now. We are not responsible.
You are.
That is intriguing. I would love to know what the Minister means by that.
The Minister cannot duck out of it like that.
We are responsible for agreements we draw up.
They are acting for the Department.
The Minister is paying them.
Yes, we are providing the money but in respect of agreements they make with private contractors —and they have done that successfully this year in respect of 96 per cent of the private contractors——
CIE are responsible for providing the service.
I am stating the factual position. CIE draw up the contracts.
They have agreed with the Department to provide the service.
I am not a party to such contracts and neither are the Department. When Deputy Barry was Minister for Education and PAMBO made representations to him, did he accept that he was a party to the agreement and thereby had a direct involvement in it? He did not.
The Minister should not answer questions for me. I will answer them myself.
Neither did my predecessor.
When I was Minister I had to move the Estimate for the Department of Education which included an amount for school transport.
PAMBO made representations to him and he did nothing for them.
The Minister should not do the same.
Neither did my predecessor. I appeal to those few members of PAMBO who are withholding their services and to CIE to discuss whatever small differences are between them and to restore the service wherever it is outstanding.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 October 1978.