asked the Minister for Education if, in view of the hardship being caused to parents by the introduction of charges for school bus services, she will abolish the present system of charges without delay.
32.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - School Transport.
31.
asked the Minister for Education if the school bus charges introduced by her show a rural bias; if she will consider a more equitable manner of re-imbursing her department; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 31 and 32 together.
The Estimates for Public Services published in November 1982 provided £28.2 million for school transport in 1983. In order to operate within the Estimate and to avoid cutbacks in the service, it was necessary for the Government to seek a contribution towards the cost of operating the scheme from post-primary pupils who avail of it. The contribution represents only a small fraction of the cost of operating the scheme. In order to take into account any difficulty in the circumstances of large families, family contributions were limited to a certain maximum. In addition, it was decided to exempt certain senior cycle pupils whose parents or legal guardians hold medical cards.
Because of the distance criteria determining eligibility for school transport, pupils from rural areas benefit most, but not exclusively, from it. Therefore, there is an inherent rural bias in the scheme as a whole.
In addition to seeking contributions from post-primary pupils using school transport, it was necessary to withdraw the special subsidy which was paid to CIE in respect of special school child fares. The beneficiaries of such special fares were mainly pupils from urban areas who travelled by bus to and from school. These pupils, of whom there are about 65,000, now pay fares travelling to and from school comparable to the contributions required on behalf of their rural counterparts.
Surely the Minister will accept there is undue hardship being imposed on families, particularly those on social welfare disability benefit and so on? Does he not accept that there is a very definite rural bias being shown in the decision to have these fares made compulsory now on children?
I cannot accept that at all. I think Deputy Tunney would not accept that, to judge from his earlier questions.
Surely the Minister must accept that, as and from tomorrow, there will be children who will either not be taken on the bus or who will be taken off the bus? Does the Minister accept that this is the proper way to administer education in Ireland, education which is compulsory up to the age of 15?
I have already replied to a number of supplementaries in relation to school transport costs and the reason charges have to be introduced and I have nothing further to add. I do not accept——
The Minister must say what will happen now to those children who cannot go to school. They must go to school under the law of the land and they find now that prohibitive charges prevent them from so doing. What do the children of Ireland do now?
I do not accept the Deputy's claim that this will prohibit children from going to school.
It is a fact.
With respect, Deputy, I do not accept that. The charges were necessary because of the shortfall produced in the Book of Estimates produced by the former Government——
The Deputy opposite is now the Minister.
What I have been saying is a fact and I find it rather strange——
Nonsense.
The Deputy is now the Minister.
I find it rather strange being accused here of imposing charges on school transport by members of a former Government who stated quite clearly, through a statement by their former Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy V. Brady, that they proposed to introduce the same charges. I accept that charges will impose difficulties on some people. In relation to school transport generally I should say that it is necessary to have a complete review undertaken of our entire school transport services. That is what I am doing at present. Until such time as I have examined that matter with various interests and organisations throughout the country and come to a conclusion I am not in a position to add anything further to what I have said already in reply to a whole series of supplementary questions and to claims made here last week in Private Members' time. I am sorry I cannot give any more information. The charges are there, it is a factual situation and it is something for which the people opposite, when in Government, cannot disclaim responsibility.
We would have been far more sensitive and would have held consultations with the people.
Would the Minister accept that there will be children in Ireland tomorrow who will not get the education to which they are entitled?
The Minister in replying inferred that I had indicated earlier that there was some rural or other bias. Would the Minister accept that the point I made was that it was rather regrettable that the children of Dublin taxpayers — 50,000 of them was the figure given — who benefited to the extent of £1 million only are now being subjected to a 100 per cent increase? That is the point I made. He would know that the total provision for that fund is £25 million.
The Chair has been generous in allowing supplementaries on this question and is now passing to the next question.