By an order made earlier today it has been agreed to interrupt the business of the House to enable statements to be made in connection with the situation relating to school bus charges. The Minister will have 20 minutes and a speaker from each of the Opposition parties will have 20 minutes each. The discussion will conclude with The Workers' Party representative at 6.15, a representative for Fianna Fáil at 6.30 and the Government at 6.45. In between there will be an allowance for ten minutes each for alternative speakers on this matter.
School Bus Charges: Statements.
This debate coming very shortly after the debate on private Members' Business on the same topic only last week provides the opportunity to set out clearly and unambiguously the history of the introduction of charges for school transport for second level pupils. No amount of special pleading or righteousness expressed by the Opposition can alter the chronicled facts of the situation. On 18 November 1982, the previous Government published their Estimates for the Public Services, 1983, and held press conferences to announce the main details of these Estimates. The main thrust of these Estimates was a recognition that there was a definite limit to the available financial resources for the public services in 1983 and that the amount of the provision which could be made for these services had accordingly to be restricted. It follows as day follows night, that the provision for a service cannot be restricted without the imposition of restrictions on the service itself. In connection with these Estimates the then Minister for Education issued a statement, on the same day, 18 November 1982, which dealt with the restrictions which would have to come about in education as a result of these decisions on the Estimates for the Public Services. I quote as follows from his statement:
There will be no charge introduced for pupils of national schools eligible for free transport in accordance with the school transport regulations. The cost of the scheme for Primary and Post-Primary Schools has, however, been growing to such an extent that measures need to be taken in regard to it. Since no alteration is contemplated on the range of the service, the measures required to control cost must involve the introduction of a charge in the case of second level pupils. Consideration is being given to the question of the arrangements to be made for the implementation of such charge. It is contemplated that such arrangements would take the form of the issue of a season ticket, that there would be a lower rate for junior pupils and that a concession would be made to take account of the circumstances of larger families.
There can be no denying this statement. It is there on the record and for the record. For the Opposition to take the position, that when in government they did not contemplate and decide on the introduction of school bus charges, is hardly in accordance with the record. To adopt such a position would be tantamount also to treating their published Book of Estimates for the Public Services, 1983, as a work of fiction. In these Estimates the provision for the operation of school transport in 1983 was £28.2 million, as against an estimated operational cost of £33.6 million.
What then could Fianna Fáil, in Government, be thinking of if it was not to make up the shortfall as between the estimate provided and the estimated operational cost, from the charges on second level pupils which they announced on 18 November? If this were not done there would be very little alternative other than that of restricting the service, or perhaps cutting it off altogether at the latter end of the year, or maybe, just maybe, they would have had recourse yet again to further supplementary estimates funded by yet further foreign borrowing to postpone even further the day when the nation would have to come to terms with paying its bills. Or maybe they now feel they are adequately fulfilling their function by shedding public crocodile tears about the imposition of school bus charges. Constructive opposition indeed. The single most significant fact that emerges from all the debate and discussion on school bus charges, is that nowhere has there been a suggestion that the service be restricted, or discontinued, or not be made available to a single eligible pupil. There has been no clearer endorsement of the Government's policy, on assuming office, that the school transport service should be continued and that an effort be made to cope with the increasing cost of the service by the introduction of charges for second level pupils as a means of offsetting a proportion of the cost.
Let us look then at the steps taken by the Government in this regard and the way in which they differed from the proposals put forward by the previous administration. The provision in the November Estimates was accepted and a charge was introduced for a term ticket for second-level pupils only with a lower charge for junior than for senior pupils. A maximum contribution per family was fixed to take account of the circumstances of large families. So far, so good. The Opposition cannot take exception to these arrangements as they followed exactly the pattern contemplated by the then Minister for Education, Deputy Brady, in his public statement of 18 November.
What then are they taking exception to? Is it the level of the charge? It will have to be acknowledged that at a little more than £1 per week for junior cycle pupils and £2 per week for senior cycle pupils it represents good value. But apart altogether from that consideration, the level of the charge follows automatically from the number of pupils using the service and the amount of the deficit to be made good in its operation. This could not have been significantly different had there been no change of Government.
The provision in subhead D.3 of Vote 28 in the published volume of the Estimates for the Public Services for 1983 is £28.55 million of which £28.2 million is for the operation of the school transport service in 1983 and the remainder is a capital provision. This represents a very considerable charge among those items of expenditure in the Education group of Votes classified as non-pay. It is appropriate to compare this charge with the outlay for the support and maintenance of schools other than for the payment of teachers' salaries. For comparison, the provision for the grant in lieu of tuition fees payable to secondary schools is £18,347,000 and capitation grants to primary schools £10,400,000. The hard fact emerges that in any attempt to contain expenditure on educational services, the growth and scale of the school transport charge made it inevitable that it would come under scrutiny and this it did in the Estimates of the 18 November.
The present Government accepted the estimate of 18 November but modified the proposals by waiving the school transport charge in respect of senior cycle pupils whose parents or guardians were holders of medical cards. This was done out of consideration for the less well-off parents who make considerable sacrifices to keep their older children at school during a stage when it is expensive to meet their needs and who forego the income these young people might have earned had they taken a job. Surely the Opposition cannot be objecting to this concession.
The majority of the parents of the country are well aware of the difficult economic situation which obtains at present and have demonstrated in this situation their anxiety to maintain the school transport service by making the necessary contributions in respect of their children. The representations received by me and by the Government as well as the response to the school transport charges has indicated very clearly that this is the case. What has also emerged from these representations, however, is a growing concern for the small minority of parents for whom meeting the charge of junior cycle level would constitute particular hardship and for whose children the use of the school bus service is essential in order to enable them to make a satisfactory attendance at school.
This concern is felt by the Government no less than by the Opposition and it was for that very reason that the Government have now decided to bring forward a measure which would discreetly identify such cases of real hardship and exempt the parents concerned from the payment of the school bus charge in respect of their children attending the junior cycle of second level schools. I would find it impossible to believe that the Opposition are now objecting to such a measure when no later than last week, several of their number in Private Members' Business, including Deputy O'Rourke, who has since been appointed as their spokesman on Education — and I want to offer her my warmest congratulations on this well-deserved appointment — were clamouring for just that.
What remains except an allegation of confusion? Perhaps it is a confusion which exists only among members of an Opposition who do not profess to know about provisions made in the Estimates which they themselves framed, which attempts to disown public statements made by their Minister for Education when in office. There is no confusion among the parents of Ireland on the issue. School bus charges remain and parents who have not paid the charge are urged to do so if they wish the school transport service to be continued.
Parents of pupils in the senior cycle attending their appropriate centre who have medical cards do not have to pay the charge in respect of such pupils. Parents of pupils in the junior cycle attending their appropriate centre for whom the payment of the charge would constitute a particular hardship and where the school bus service is essential to the satisfactory attendance of their children at school will be given exemption from the charge under the provisions announced by me yesterday, the details of which will be made known following consultation with the schools authorities and the transport liaison officers.
I am very disappointed at the crocodile tears being shed by the Opposition on this matter. I can only attribute this extraordinary carry-on as the technique of the big lie and the loud shout. It comes strangely from a party who brought this country to the point it is at today who belatedly turned around in the latter half of last year and tried to convince the country they had finally learned their lesson.
Over four years, from 1977 to 1981, Fianna Fáil played fast and loose with Ireland's financial dependence. Every soft option was taken, every difficult decision was run away from, business confidence was shattered, wages and salaries were allowed to spiral without check and the arrival of the present Leader of the Opposition to the office of Taoiseach was the signal for a further massive slide into irresponsibility. Presumably the motivation for such irresponsibility was a desire for power at any price but the price was being paid by and being lumped firmly onto the people throughout the country, and in particular on the young people whose future was put in jeopardy by the massive foreign debt which the Leader of the Opposition and his erstwhile Cabinet colleagues piled up. It is extraordinary to see the Fianna Fáil Front Bench washing their hands of a decision which had to be made when reality finally struck them.
In this discussion about school transport charges I would like to appeal to the Opposition to behave responsibly, to acknowledge the fact that the country has arrived at a situation where financial contributions must be expected from the people who can afford them, to acknowledge freely the fact that they designed the 1983 Book of Estimates and that they were quite relieved in an election campaign when the then Opposition parties agreed that these Estimates would be accepted. It is amazing to find the Opposition decrying school transport charges and I look forward with interest to hearing the details of how the £5.5 million for school transport was to be found.
I have listened with interest to the Minister for Education. I am very glad the request put forward by the leader of the Opposition and myself this morning to have this matter debated has been granted because it was very necessary to clear up the confusion which exists throughout the country about school transport charges and the seeming change of heart by the Minister. I want to put it on record that we asked for this debate. I am very grateful for the time being given to us and for the Minister's statement, but I must admit that I am appalled that I was treated to a party political broadcast on behalf of a particular party.
(Interruptions.)
I did not interrupt the Minister and I expect to receive the same treatment from the Government parties. We were treated to a recital of what happened in the past.
Deputy Hussey is the present Minister for Education. Yes, Fianna Fáil suggested introducing school transport charges, but there would have been consultation before they were brought in. In my capacity as a rural Deputy I would have had a considerable input into the formulation of those charges. Therefore I find it extraordinary to see the present Minister washing her hands in public and blaming past administrations for the present position. She and her Government are the legitimate rulers of this country and it is their proposals for school transport charges we are discussing.
I wish to refer to two statements issued by the Minister for Education, the first made on 23 December in which she announced the implementation in the foreseeable future of these charges and the second was made on the radio yesterday, 22 February, and we subsequently received a statement of what appeared to be a change of heart and a climb down. If it is such, I welcome it but it appears to be an unsteady stumble rather than a clear climbing down.
We, the Opposition, are today seeking clarification of those statements. Having listened to the Minister I, as the spokesperson on Education, am not happy with the proposals for modifications she outlined, and how they will be agreed and implemented.
The Minister has referred to a Private Members' Motion and to crocodile tears. I was one of the three Fianna Fáil Deputies who on this day last week put down a Private Members' Motion that no child in Ireland would be denied access to education because of the school transport charge. There is a very clear, salient point here. Up to the passing of the School Attendance Act, 1972, children were compulsorily obliged to attend school from the age of six to 14 years, although common usage, particularly in rural areas, is to have the school entrance age at four. Subsequent to that Act, every boy and girl, by the law of this land, must go to school until 15 years of age. The anomaly which I have pointed out on previous occasions is, how can you say to a child, "You must go to school" and yet a limited number of children cannot do so, because of the financial circumstances of their parents? No exhortations, lectures or sermons will change that fact that every boy and girl must go to school until 15 years of age. I am repeating myself, but the Minister will bear with me because she repeated much of what she said last week.
One leaves primary school at the age of 12, or sometimes 13. One then proceeds to a vocational or secondary school. However, many children will not be able to do this because of the school charges. I repeat that there is something wrong with this provision of the Department of Education and the Minister must look at it. There is a clear anomaly in the law as the matter now stands and confusion reigns. I suggest that the Minister, the Labour and Fine Gael Deputies should note that the three daily newspapers and "the paper"—The Cork Examiner, have all subscribed to the idea that Irish parents today do not know what is going on in regard to school transport. There are parents facing particular hardship. The Minister and her Minister of State had previously said that they knew of no child who could not go to school and I am glad that in the space of one week they have come to face the hard fact that there are young children who cannot go to school because of the prohibitive transport charges.
I hope that the Minister, in reply, will clarify the position regarding the points I have made, which need very strong and unequivocal clarification. The Minister in her statement says:
The Government have given consideration to the question of a modification of the decision for the imposition of a charge in respect of school transport in so far as it concerns junior cycle pupils attending their appropriate centre whose parents would face particular hardship in meeting the charges, and where the use of such transport was essential to enable the pupils to make satisfactory school attendance.
Who will be the judge and jury in these cases? The Minister continues:
It has been decided to consult with representatives of the school management authorities and the transport liaison officers with a view to seeking their cooperation in the implementation of arrangements for exemption from the charge in such cases."
Her final paragraph reads:
The parents of all other pupils... ......
But who is to decide who is to be one kind of pupil and who is to be another? We are all acquainted with education, which is a very emotive, lively, everyday subject. One does not have to be a parent to be interested in it. Parents with young children are very directly involved, but an older brother or sister, an aunt or uncle would also be interested. We are all caught up in education in some way. If affects every home in Ireland every five days of the week. Who is to decide that Mary Ann is a special child and Tommy Joe is not? From my fairly considerable knowledge of school management authorities and of school liaison officers, it is not correct to put upon them the onus of deciding the category of the pupil.
We know that it is in the raw nature of young and growing persons to be hard and cruel to one another and I can envisage the scene on the buses when the finger is pointed at a child and he or she is told by the others: "You are the special child" or "You are not a special child", as the case may be. In all sincerity, and certainly without crocodile tears, I do not want to appear immodest but in this line of education and transport charges, while I do not know everything, I know this problem. I am a Deputy from a town with a strong rural hinterland, have taught for many years in a school with a large catchment of rural pupils and know the nature of the girls and boys, fathers and mothers of whom I speak.
The modification announced by the Minister, which I welcome and for which we pressed for last week on separate occasions and this week, will not work. How can the Minister or her Department officials work out who is needy and who is not? The school transport charges were hastily introduced and are hastily going to be implemented, but could the Minister not remove herself from her subject, think about it and consult with people?
At Question Time today, Deputies from all sides of the House brought up various questions on education and I credit the Minister with replying that she would be consulting. In one case in which I had a particular interest she used that phrase and I was very glad to see again that word coming back into educational matters, one which should be used more often, in fact constantly, that of consultation.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Education is a lively, real subject. It is not academic, not connected with the alphabet, or with addition and subtraction but with very real people, mostly with young people. One cannot tell one young child he or she can get on a bus and another that he or she cannot. Last week, following on our educational debate Professor Raftery, the educational expert, speaking at a seminar said that perhaps one of the reasons for the backwardness of Irish agriculture today is that 80 per cent of farmers today in Ireland have no secondary school education. He said he hoped that in the changing climate of today that position would change. I hope so too. Loss of free transport will affect urban children, but more particularly, rural children.
Are we to go back to an era of life in Ireland when there will be discrimination against the urban, rural bias? Are we to go back to an era in Ireland when there will be discrimination against children? Does any one of the Deputies sitting on the opposite benches, or indeed on the Labour benches, wish to go to a meeting and face people who will say to them: "My child is taken on the bus free," while another will say: "My child is not taken on the bus free"?
Regardless of the past, I submit, as spokesperson for education on this side of the House — and I know there are many Deputies on the other side of the House who agree with me on this — that we were very glad when free education came in in Ireland. It has produced a crop, a generation of young, bright, lively people entitled to and getting education. I would plead that we do not go back on that now. The saving of £5 million would ill-serve the future.
I wish to thank the Minister for her very kind wishes to me extended across the floor of the House today, as I wished her well last week in her new portfolio. There is no rancour or ill-feeling for the present incumbent of the office in what I say. There is only a broad, educational wish to say to the Minister that I feel the educational charges are confused, are causing confusion in the country today, that they will lead to further confusion and discrimination against young people. I would say to the Minister: leave the school transport charges for this year, sit back, consult with her officials, with the interested parties, with parents, with the various bodies involved and come up with an equitable answer. I intend, for however short or long a period I will be sitting on these benches — and I hope it might be short — to be constructive about education——
(Interruptions.)
If I may be allowed to say in my first major speech as education spokesperson, I intend to be constructive. I take my responsibilities very seriously. I do not intend to be destructive or to criticise for the sake of criticising: education is much too serious a subject for that. It is a subject which affects every one of us. It is important and vital to Ireland today that our young people growing up receive proper education. I ask the Minister for clarification of her statement of yesterday and I look forward to hearing her reply.
The debate on this issue of school transport so far has been something of a pillow fight between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, one accusing the other of being the "badies" in this situation.
The whiter than white Workers' Party.
Deputy De Rossa without interruption.
The debate so far has been about whether one or the other is responsible for the cuts when in fact the debate should be about whether or not the cuts are correct in view of the need for the best possible education for the youth of this country. The approach of the present Government is no less or no more scandalous in this regard than that of the former administration. The Minister has pointed out already that the cuts proposed were part and parcel of Fianna Fáil policy before their defeat at the last general election.
The point that needs to be debated is whether or not this House wants to provide equality of opportunity for all of the children of this State. If that is what we want to do — and I understand that to be the declared policy of all the parties in this House — then clearly any attempt to introduce school bus charges, or charges in any form of educational service already provided free, is totally at variance with that declared aim.
I should like to remind the House that Fine Gael in a pre-election statement said that when in government, they would review the school transport system, that they recognised the need to make savings in this area. This review would take place at local level so that anomalies could be removed and the system made more cost-effective. Some changes, they said, may be necessary. How have the Government shown that the moves they are making at present are cost-effective? To what extent will the changes they are effecting now result in greater red tape, in greater administrative costs, in means tests and so on? There is absolutely no sense to the chopping and changing in which the Minister has engaged since taking up office.
The Labour Party, part of the present administration, said in their pre-election manifesto that, in general, the scheme should be free. They said also, in the event of insufficient resources, some subsidy might be necessary from the better-off sections of the community. What precisely they meant by that is difficult to say. Obviously they were keeping their options open in case the opportunity of Coalition presented itself. But it can be contended that a subsidy of any kind must come from taxation. The principle must be adhered to, if we accept that education should be free and that the opportunity of education should be made available to all, then the payment for education should be made through general taxation. To attempt to introduce charges at that or any other level, to attempt to cut-back on various services already provided in schools, in order to save money or balance the books, is totally at variance with any commitment to equality of opportunity in education.
The present Government came into office in December last. On 23 December last, the eve of the Christmas holiday, the Minister announced her cuts. Presumably she announced them then in order to avoid having to face the public on the issue, presumably hoping that the row over the cuts would have died down before the Christmas holiday was over.
The announcement made last evening was made outside this House also. I find it strange that Government policy statements increasingly seem to be made outside the Dáil. It is difficult to find a policy statement that was not first made outside the Dáil before being practically dragged out of the Government in the House. In future, the Minister should attempt to present her policies and policy changes to the House before going to the media.
This is not a practice confined to the present Minister for Education. Other Department policy changes have been announced outside the Dáil. They have not been made here and therefore we have not been able to have debates on them.
I said earlier that education, as a matter of right, should be available free at the point of delivery and that the costs should be met from taxation. The Minister today said that parents accept that the country is in a difficult economic situation. It is true, but parents want to know why is it that they are paying for the services in their taxation while they are being asked time after time to pay not only for school bus services but hardly a week passes when the schools to which the children go send home requests for money for this, that and the other — heating for the schools, equipment for the schools, maintenance of the schools. Parents are being asked practically every week for assistance to maintain the educational system, despite the fact that parents are paying through the nose by way of PAYE, for the educational system. At the same time, Deputy Skelly's friends, the self-employed, the small companies and the farmers, owe £450 million in back taxes which the Revenue Commissioners have not been able to collect. The Minister is trying to save on the school transport service at a time when sectors of the community which are not in the PAYE scheme owe between £7 million and £8 million in social insurance contributions which have not been collected by the agencies of the State. It is therefore difficult to convince parents that the Government are serious when they talk about the country being in a difficult financial position, when this money is left in the pockets of people who simply refuse to pay their just share of the running costs of the State.
It is clear from the budget and from statements The Workers' Party have been making in the House in the past year that there is nothing to choose between the present administration — it is clear from the Budget taxation and the cuts that have been made that it is a Fine Gael dominated Coalition — and Fianna Fáil, now in Opposition. Many times we have made the point that there is no difference between the two major conservative parties. Every time the Minister for Education introduced her cuts since she took up that portfolio she has proved the point. She has continually stated that the Fine Gael dominated Government have accepted Fianna Fáil Estimates, that by and large they have accepted Fianna Fáil decisions made when they were in Government. Apart from minor adjustments here and there, we have not heard of any major policy changes by the Fine Gael dominated Coalition since they took office.
The decision, now possibly forestalled, to put inspectors on the buses warning children they will not any longer be allowed to travel if they cannot produce evidence that their parents had paid, is possibly one of the most harsh and insensitive moves which the present administration have made. The VAT on shoes and clothing perhaps was an indication of what a Fine Gael dominated Coalition would be capable of, but for hard neck the most recent decisions cap it.
A factor which so far has been ignored in the debate is the manner in which the subvention to CIE has been withdrawn. It was given to enable CIE to keep school bus fares at 10p. This has been withdrawn by the Government. Parents, accordingly, whether they have £200 a week or £40, have to pay twice as much money to get their children to school. Parents have come to me who are living on assistance and who now must pay £8 a week for school bus fares because of the withdrawal of the CIE subvention. The other elements in the Minister's package, increasing the teacher-pupil ratio, doing away with guidance counsellors in schools of fewer than 500 pupils, tampering with the number of remedial teachers in schools and taking away secretarial and caretaker services from schools—all of these things, not just the taking away of school transport, will affect directly the quality of education which children can have. It will affect children directly in proportion to the amount of the incomes their families will have — the poorer the families the greater the effect this will have on the chances of getting their children educated. The decisions taken by the Minister yesterday are simply token gestures — she is reacting to the very strong and justified anger of parents and teachers at the manner in which the educational sector is being treated. I do not think the gesture will fool anyone, the parents, the teachers or their trade unions. The Government must restore the subvention to CIE and reverse their decisions with regard to guidance counsellors, remedial teachers, caretakers and so on.
I will be brief in putting a few points before the House. This subject has been freely debated in the last week or so. Last week we had a Private Members' debate on it for three hours. In the last few sitting days I replied to more than 300 questions, most of them dealing with school transport. Now we are having a third debate on school transport generally.
At the outset I should like to emphasise that it is a very complicated and a very difficult scheme to keep in operation throughout the country. I would pay a tribute to those who in the past have done their best to try to keep the service going. Now that the Minister has asked me to take responsibility for the operation of school transport and its administration, I will put a few points before the House. Free school transport was introduced in 1967 when fuel prices were low and the cost of manpower was cheap. In that year it cost £1.9 million. In 1983 the cost will be approximately £33.5 million, an enormous growth.
We talk here about free education, free transport, free health services, free this and free that. It is very fashionable and popular to talk about things which are "free", but someone will always have to pay, the school transport service being no exception. We must consider whether we should continue to ask taxpayers to subsidise school transport for people who could well afford to make a contribution towards it. That is a very important factor in this debate.
I stated last week, and I now repeat, that I am carrying out with my officials an in-depth study of the entire school transport system and I hope in the near future to make recommendations to the Government in relation to some changes which I regard as necessary. We have had discussions with the Private Bus Owners' Association and other interested people and there has been no scarcity of suggestions and recommendations. In many instances, however, the recommendations would not stand up to scrutiny.
I wish to pay tribute to CIE for their contribution in operating this scheme since 1967. There are many problems relating to catchment areas and the exclusion of some children because they do not live within the required distance to qualify for free transport. The school transport system was introduced in 1967 and we have some school buses which are owned by the Department of Education and operated by CIE. These are the yellow buses known as bus scoileanna. Very few people realise that these buses are over 16 years old. How many Members drive to this House in cars which are 16 or even six years old? The Government will be faced in the near future with the need to expend a huge capital sum to replace those buses, if we do not change the present system. We are transporting the children of this nation in buses which are hardly roadworthy.
I have heard it said by Opposition Members and others that one of the reasons the school transport system is so expensive is that these bus scoileanna are not competing for private work. Let me clarify the position. I do not believe that these buses would be in a position to compete because they were originally designed as school buses and even if they were able to compete with private enterprise they would be operating in a very limited market.
I have not seen Deputy Gerard Brady, the former Minister for Education, taking any part in the discussion on this subject. While Minister he made a statement on 18 November 1982 that charges should be introduced. I cannot understand why he has not been in this House during the discussions and has not given a reason for his statement. In his statement of 18 November 1982 there was a reference only to the position of larger families. This Government provided that children whose parents or guardians were holders of medical cards would have free transport to senior cycle post primary schools. It rings hollow for the Opposition to try to make political capital out of a decision for which they bear more responsibility than anybody else in this House. This matter must be viewed against the background of the serious economic situation for which they cannot disclaim responsibility.
I am reviewing the entire school transport service and I hope to be able to make some recommendations shortly. I should like to see a more efficient system. We must bear in mind that someone always has to pay the piper and there are people who could well afford to make a contribution towards school transport costs. I appeal to the Opposition to reconsider their stance and to consider whether they are justified in bringing this matter to the floor of the House and trying to make political capital out of a system to provide transport for our children.
We are glad of the opportunity to discuss the school transport scheme and I do not mind how often this matter is brought before the House. We make no apology to anyone for raising it as often as we can. The chaos being created by the indecisiveness of this Government justifies our pursuing this matter.
While I welcome the element of modification announced by the Minister for many families whose children's education was in danger of being discontinued, I am not satisfied with the overall position. It is daily becoming more obvious that there was little if any examination or consultation in relation to the Government's original proposals of 23 December 1982. The decision was hurriedly taken and announced on the eve of the Christmas holidays. What happened to the election promise of Fine Gael? Did they not consider that before the announcement was made?
The Minister's statement yesterday afternoon was to the effect that it had been decided to consult with representatives of school management authorities and the transport liaison officers with a view to seeking their co-operation in the implementation of arrangements for exemption from the charge. I contend that the emerging chaos caused by the Government in regard to school transport was forecast by educationalists, trade unions involved in education—the INTO, ASTI and TUI—parents' associations, school management committees and managers and public representatives. In particular it was forecast by Fianna Fáil Members who contributed to the motion discussed last week in the House. It was brought home to the Minister by those Members, especially those from rural areas, the foolishness of her inept endeavour.
I should like to refer to the stupid decision by the Minister in regard to families holding medical cards. Those cards were issued on the general criteria of low income. Parents and guardians of junior cycle students are obliged to pay for transport out of their already established meagre income. If such families have a student in senior cycle—many of them have but they are fewer in number than the numbers in junior cycle — that student is entitled to travel free while the junior is expected to pay. What sort of reasoning is behind that?
In Monday's issue of The Cork Examiner there was a headline, “Pupils Must Start Walking”. The story under that heading contained a very disturbing statement. It was:
In a statement issued over the weekend CIE inspectors were told to board all school buses and to inform the "spongers", as the Department sees it, that they have two days in which to pay up or make alternative arrangements.
That was a nice title for the Department to give people who cannot pay these savage charges. I did not see any subsequent condemnation of that description in subsequent issues of that newspaper. That newspaper was not taken to task by members of the Government although recently two members of the Government complained about the accuracy of the reporting in The Cork Examiner. I was waiting for the third Minister to attack that newspaper but silence gives assent.
As the Minister has already been forced to radically revise one aspect of the scheme she should go the full distance and re-examine all her proposals. The Minister should enter into consultations with all concerned to formulate a new scheme for school transport. If the Minister adopted that attitude she would eliminate the confusion caused by her decision, her indecisiveness and that of the Government. I do not accept the continued reference being made to Estimates and programmes of the last Government. The Coalition are in power and they have the responsibility. They have created the chaos and it is up to them to sort it out. In the meantime we will give all the constructive help we can.
The Government, and the Minister, must seriously examine the contradiction where children are compulsorily required to attend school up to the age of 15. The Government's decision in these times of economic depression denies some children access to school due to the inability of their parents or guardians to pay the transport charge. That bears most severely on children in rural areas. Are they expected to walk to school or cycle without taking into account the volume of traffic on our county roads? Ceist eile atá agam. Cad faoi páistí scoileanna lán-Ghaelacha? Na scoileanna sin nach bhfuil go ró flúirseach tríd is tríd na tíre agus dá bhrí sin go gcaithfidh páistí taisteal turasanna fada chucu. Tá brú orthu siúl agus ní ghlacaim leis sin ar aon chaoi. Measaim go mba chóir go mbeadh breis cabhrach le fáil dóibh in ionad laghdú cabhrach. Ach tuigim go maith agus tuigeann an tír ar fad go bhfuil sé de chuspóir ag an Rialtas seo faoi mar a bhí ag gach Comhrialtas a bhí sa tír seo nach gcloínn siad leis an Ghaeilge agus nach gcloínn siad le Gealeachas na tíre seo. Tá sé soiléir dom agus do roinnt daoine eile nach bhfuil clú ná cáil ag an Rialtas seo ar chúrsaí Gaeilge agus cúrsaí oideachais sa Ghaeilge i measc na scoileanna lán-Ghaelacha.
The cart-before-the-horse attitude of the Government in regard to school transport has been accepted by them under pressure as being a wrong and ill-informed decision. I am glad the Government are now indicating to the House that they are prepared to talk to people in an effort to provide a school transport scheme that will be equitable and will not bear heavily on families or parents in the furtherance of their children's education. I regret I must conclude on a nasty note in reply to one introduced by the Minister earlier when she attacked the Leader of the Opposition. That will not endear the Minister any more than it did her leader when he spent six hours on the same stunt when our leader was proposed for Taoiseach. I suggest with respect to the Minister that it would be better for her to concentrate her efforts on the solution of this problem in regard to school transport created by her and the Government of which she is a member.
I congratulate the Minister on having made some slight alteration in the severe cutbacks in school transport. I do not subscribe to the back-down theory. I think it is a good thing if the Minister listens to people's objections and looks again at some decision and it is a good thing that the Minister has taken another look at the problem in this case. I suggest now that she looks much more closely again and again, and listens again and again, to what the parents are saying. I agree with her there is an element of hyprocrisy in the Fianna Fáil objections because they intended in their Estimates to do the same thing. They did not do it because they were not in Government and so it is the present Minister who has done it. Most of her speech was taken up in pointing out it was Fianna Fáil who originally introduced the cutback and so they should now sit quiet and say nothing. It must be hard for her to listen to Fianna Fáil Deputies now lashing her for doing precisely what they intended to do, but it is she who must now take the responsibility.
She said it was the intention discreetly to identify those who are not in a position to pay for school transport. That is something that just cannot be done. You cannot discreetly identify one child from another. We in The Workers' Party are asking that there should be no change in the availability of free school transport at the level obtaining on 1 December last. We are also asking that CIE be given an additional subvention to enable it to restore school buses to the level obtaining on 1 December last. I am asking the Minister to look again at the whole question of free education and equality of opportunity. These have been the foundation of the thinking and tradition of the State since it first evolved. We were not able to do that for a long number of years but right from the Proclamation the whole question of equality of opportunity for the children of this nation was the basis on which the State was founded. Having got to the stage of being able to give free education we should have done everything possible to ensure that no change would ever subsequently take place in that.
The recent budget has imposed a charge for school transport and that charge is tantamount to putting a tax on school children, putting a tax on education, a tax on the future of our citizens, a tax on children who cannot answer back, who have not the opportunity of putting their case and must depend on their parents to do so for them. Any of those who have agreed to pay the extra charges are people who cannot afford to do so. They are paying by taking away from something else, in some cases by taking food off the table. They are prepared to do everything they can to give their children a good education. It is not sufficient just to say that there are some who have paid and there are some who have not paid, who probably are not able to pay, and we shall discreetly identify these. We must also indentify those who are making tremendous sacrifices in order to pay.
I would make a special plea to the Minister in regard to urban school transport. In urban areas the charge is £72 a year whereas in rural areas it is £54 a year. The Minister was making the case that those in rural areas should not be crying so much about these charges because those in urban areas were getting it even worse. It is a fact they are getting it worse. The increase in urban areas is 100 per cent because of the reduction in the subvention to CIE. It is a small sum in the region of £1.5 million. I can tell the Minister where she can get the money. I can list numerous areas in which the money can be found. Take the £8 million in health charges still owed by the farmers. They refuse to pay them. That would provide the necessary subvention to CIE. Take the PRSI and PAYE which employees have paid but which are held back by employers from the Exchequer. Why are the Revenue Commissioners allowing employers to do that? It is absolutely illegal. These payments are made by employees to the Exchequer and they should come into the Exchequer. Without any more taxation the Minister can sit in the Cabinet and ask her colleague, the Minister for Finance, what he is doing about bringing in money legally due to the Exchequer, money which will enable the Minister for Education to continue a proper school transport system.
Ba mhaith liomsa freisin cúpla focal a rá thar ceann na scoileanna lán-Ghaelacha. Níl mórán díobh sa tír. Níl a fhios agam cé mhéid atá sa tír ar fad. I mBaile Atha Cliath sa dara léibhéal níl ach cúig scoileanna lan-Ghaelacha. Tá dhá cheann amuigh i Stillorgan; tá ceann i Clondalkin, ceann eile, Coláiste Mhuire Cearnóg Pharnell, agus ceann thuas i nGlasnaoín, Scoil Chaitríona. Tá daoine ag teacht ó Chill Mhantáin, ó Chontae na Mí agus ó gach aird den chathair chuig na cúig scoileanna sin. Cad tá á dhéanamh futhu siúd. Ar a laghad iarraim ar an Aire eisceacht a dhéanamh des na scoileanna lán-Ghaelacha nuair atá an beartas seo faoi deireadh a chur le saor-thaisteal ar na busanna, mar má chuirtear é seo i bhfeidhm sna scoileanna lán-Gaelacha tiocfaidh laghdú ar líon na ndaltaí a bheidh ag freastal ar na scoileanna sin. Ni bheidh fágtha ag freastal ar na scoileanna ach na daoine siúd go bhfuil in achmhainn costas na mbusanna agus an costas breise seo a íoc. Iarraim ar an Aire mar sin, mura bhfuil sí in ann deireadh a chur leis an mbeartas in a iomlán, ar a laghad go ndéanfadh sí eisceacht des na scoileanna lán-Ghaelacha agus mar a deirim níl ach cúig cinn i mBaile Atha Cliath. Níl a fhios agam cé mhéid atá sa tír ar fad ach níl morán díobh. Is í an Ghaeilge céad téanga na tíre seo. Sin atá san Bhunreacht. B'fhéidir nach gcreideann an Rialtas sin ach tá sé sin san Bhunreacht. Mar sin ba chóir eisceacht a dhéanamh des na scoileanna sin.
I, therefore ask the Minister to look again at the whole question of school transport and to end the cutbacks, to restore the subvention to CIE and to restore the free buses to the situation in which they were on the 1st December.
I wish to congratulate Deputy Hussey on her appointment as Minister for Education. I must say, however, that the warmth with which her appointment was received by the teaching profession has come to an end. Parents felt that the appointment of a lady Minister for Education would be a step in the right direction, but unfortunately this is the first Minister for Education who has proposed to remove a service to the schools in the State. We in Fianna Fáil are very proud of the fact that we introduced the free school bus service and we will not stand over the dismantling of this service.
I want to refute the allegations being made by the Government and their effort to wash their hands of a decision which they and they alone made. We were not returned to office on 24 November. The Estimates which were prepared and published were Estimates and not decisions in relation to specific items of expenditure at any particular time. If we were brought down on a budget after outlining details of a particular scheme in a Budget Statement, we could be justifiably criticised. Our spokesperson on Education, Deputy O'Rourke, has clearly stated our position in relation to this matter. We resent the Government trying to allege that we had made specific detailed decisions in relation to the school transport service. Deputy O'Rourke has stated that if such proposals came before the parliamentary party she would have been at the forefront in any debate on this matter. We made no decision and we refute the allegation that those decisions were imminent and would have been made.
The Minister should be aware of the proposals made by her party in Opposition. She may not be aware that her party published a policy on education in 1980. Deputy Collins was spokesperson on education at the time. There was no mention then of removing the school transport service or of imposing these charges. When the Government got into office they brought in these proposals for which they were not given a mandate. I wonder where the backbenchers of the Labour Party are. They were not prepared to come in here today to contribute to this debate. The once great Labour Party is now gone. They lost their leader before the election and now they are lost in the right wing Fine Gael Government.
We in the Fianna Fáil Party are the only Opposition. It is regrettable for democracy to see the Labour Party no longer representing the working class people and no longer representing policies for the betterment of our people. I indict the Labour Ministers who sat around the Government table and agreed to the imposition of charges which will deprive many young people of the opportunity of free education, something we brought in and will fight to maintain. It has always been our policy to support the free education concept and the opportunity for young people to obtain education. How do the Labour Party or indeed the Minister feel about the many representations coming in to every Deputy pleading with them to do something I will be sending specific cases to the Minister in the next few days.
I have here a letter from a distraught parent in my constituency. She states quite bluntly that her children have the choice of either thumbing or staying at home. Her weekly allowances are just keeping her head above water. I get letters like that every day of the week and so, I am sure, do the backbench Deputies of Fine Gael who are not prepared to come in and stand over the Minister's decision because they are ashamed of the decision which she and her fellow Cabinet Ministers have made. I can say the same for the discredited Labour Party.
Last week I was one of the people who signed the requisition for the Private Members' motion which read:
The Dáil calls on the Government to ensure that no child is denied the right to education because of the imposition of school bus charges.
As a result of that we had at the weekend the arrogant statements by the Department of Education on behalf of the Minister that she would put on the inspectors, to name names and to deprive young people of transport, to put them off the buses, to divide townlands and areas, to make second-class citizens of our young people. We will not allow that to happen. Thank God, due to the efforts of my party, the Minister last night in desperation decided to issue a statement that she would modify the scheme.
Deputy O'Rourke, Deputy Hugh Byrne and Deputy Michael Kitt spoke here last week and there were many more lined up to oppose the measures being proposed. The Minister was forced by public pressure to put out a statement last night. Since 23 December 1982 she had stood coldly by and refused to be moved. She told the Congress of Catholic Secondary Schools Parents Associations that she had so much to do she could not sit and talk to them. In fact she said she would bring out a document on education in about six months time when the dust had settled. The Minister hoped this would blow over and that people would pay up, but then she discovered that the dust would not blow over. She may deny it, but I suppose the ordinary decent Fine Gael backbenchers were absolutely horrified and appalled and wished to disassociate themselves from her high-handed statement. That would not be their style and Deputy Kenny can nod his head and agree with me. I pity them at the next election because many of them will lose their seats as a result of their standing idly by and allowing their Minister to take these decisions before the House and trying to impose them.
Has the Minister consulted with the Attorney General to find out if charges on young people up to 15 years of age are constitutional? It is a legal requirement that parents are obliged to send their children to school until they are 15 years of age. In the situation I have outlined one particular parent cannot afford to send her children to school because of the charges. What will her position be in law if the gardaí arrive to inform her that her children were not at school and she would then be liable for prosecution? Would she have a constitutional case to fight because the Minister has deprived her children of going to second level education? That is a very important point. Maybe the DPP would be good enough now to put forward his views in relation to this matter as he was so willingly available last week in relation to the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps he could put his legal ability to play in relation to that matter.
A former Minister in England called Margaret Thatcher was called Thatcher the snatcher. She took the milk from young children, another lady Minister. Please God we will have a really good Minister in Deputy Mary O'Rourke. Many of my constituents wonder what way will Minister Hussey be named in relation to taking school transport away from our young children. She is going a very bad way in relation to her policies. Last night the Minister issued a statement. It is some statement, because we will now have consultation. As Deputy O'Rourke said today, that is the first time the Minister has talked about consultation. She did not consult anybody on 23 December last when she imposed those charges. Will she inform the House if the people who have now, unfortunately, paid the charges and had to beg and borrow money to pay those charges, will be refunded this money now because, pending finalisation of the proposed arrangement for these pupils, CIE are being asked to ensure that transport services will continue as heretofore and parents of all the other pupils are reminded that the charges must be paid if their children are to be eligible for school transport.
The Minister is now Minister for Education and she finds the going very heavy. It is getting very hot in the political kitchen. The Minister does not know which direction to go because she will charge one day, then she will not charge, now she has to go back to the drawing board. I make an appeal to the Minister for God's sake let us be rational and sensible. Will she withdraw the charges and ensure that all our children are allowed to have free education? Surely that is right, because the Minister is going in a direction now she will never find a way out of.
The Minister is a former teacher. She is going to the schools now asking the teachers and the school managers to decide if one parent can pay and another parent cannot pay. The medical card service was bad enough. I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, to please be sensible and rational and we will not criticise her if she decides to withdraw the charges and finds out her mistake. She has got good advice from my colleague Deputy O'Rourke — let us go back to square one, go back to the drawing board again and come up with a rational new scheme.
In my opening statement I explained how this charge in respect of school transport came to be introduced. I pointed out it was done in the context of a need to control the rate of increase in expenditure on this service, particularly in the context of the difficult financial situation which affected the preparation of the Estimates for 1983. I want to emphasise that I take my full share of responsibility in relation to a decision made by this Government to confirm the arrangements which had been prepared for implementation by the previous Government, subject to the modification that pupils in the senior cycle would be exempted if their parents or legal guardians were holders of medical cards.
I can appreciate that members of the general public and other supporters of the Government or the Opposition could, on the basis of holding a particular point of view, criticise me in respect of the decision which was taken. I do not accept that the members of the Opposition, who were directly responsible as members of the cabinet or as members of the party who must have been fully informed of what was involved, should not be prepared to bear their share of responsibility for the action which was inevitable in the context of the provision made in the Estimates published on 18 November. I want to repeat that I take my full share of responsibility, and I expect that responsible members of the Opposition would do so too.
I have had discussions in recent weeks with various educational organisations and I have received representations from many sources, not alone in relation to this particular proposal, but also in relation to the other proposals which were introduced in the context of achieving a measure of balance in the public expenditure Estimates, including expenditure on the education group of votes. I have listened carefully to all the representations made to me and I have taken note of the very many valuable suggestions and sincere and genuine recommendations made by people who accepted the need for special measures but consider that alternative means should also be explored.
Many of the suggestions which were made had already been fully examined in the context of the original proposals. Perhaps, because I am a Minister with no previous ministerial experience, I am particularly susceptible to paying special regard to recommendations and suggestions made to me. It may also be that the Government are particularly responsive to public opinion and decide to take seriously the expression of all points of view. Whatever the reason, I felt compelled to pay special attention to the arguments made and pleas put forward that some means should be found of alleviating the situation of parents of junior cycle pupils for whom it would be a particular hardship to meet the charge.
I am aware that the attendance of the pupils might be adversely affected, to some degree at least, by the application of the strict requirement for payment in all cases. We live and we learn. A few days ago I would be charged with being disdainful and contemptuous of the pleas of the general public if I did not pay heed to the various suggestions that have been made. Now, because I have allowed myself to be impressed by the sincerity of so many people who are anxious to help and put forward their ideas, and because I again had the matter examined by the Government and was authorised to make a further examination of the situation with a view to finding some measure to ease the problem for deserving cases, I am attacked and so are the Government. For what? For backing down. It seems to me to be an extraordinary turn of events when you are accused of not consulting then you are accused of doing something wrong when you make a decision to consult.
There has been one particular thread running through all the representations which most impressed me. It was considered that with the co-operation of school authorities, who were familiar with the circumstances of the pupils, and also of the social welfare agencies, a method could be devised which would enable exemptions from payment to be given to real hardship cases. It was not alone accepted, but apparently given a degree of benediction, that parents who could afford to pay should be requested to meet a charge in respect of school transport for their children. The degree of unanimity with which these proposals were advanced greatly impressed me, and I became satisfied that an effort should be made to achieve what so many people seem to want. I have arranged for discussions with representatives of the second level school authorities and the transport liaison officers tomorrow morning so that I can put to them the proposals of the Government, as I announced them yesterday, and seek advice and co-operation as to how the intentions of the Government in this regard could be implemented. I should be only too glad to take into account the various contributions made in the course of this debate. It has to be admitted, however, that debates in this House do not directly contribute additional revenue for this or indeed any other purpose but that they are desirable not only as an expression of the workings of democracy but also as a means of inspiring us to greater effort as well as vindicating the examination of some new avenues.
I shall reply briefly to some of the contributions that have been made. Unfortunately, though, the major questions I posed at the outset have been avoided totally by Fianna Fáil. I reiterate that I take full responsibility for my decisions, and I should like to hear the Opposition take some of the responsibility for their decisions. If they agree with what their people did in Government in regard to the introduction of school transport charges, they should say so; if they disagree they should say that also but in that case they should let us know where they would have found the £5,500,000 they took off the Estimates. Any confusion there may be is in the minds of the Opposition. Selective quotations from the media are interesting from a party who apparently believe only some of what the media say but generally consider the media to be their enemy. Reference has been made to education as being an emotive and a lively issue. I am acutely conscious that that is the situation and I am becoming more aware of it every day.
I believe in full consultation. I have engaged in full consultation and I am in the process of full consultation now. Apparently, Deputy Brady when in office did not consult with members of the Cabinet, let alone members of his party. I do not believe in that kind of procedure.
The Workers Party, whose Members are not present at this moment, were taking the easy line, that is, that everything should be free, that no one, except perhaps foreign bankers, should pay for anything.
Reference has been made to the timing of the announcement in respect of school charges. The decision to make the announcement before Christmas was taken very seriously by me because I considered that it would be unfair not to give parents sufficient warning of the introduction of the charges. Since the charges had been mentioned in the course of the election campaign, I considered it important before perhaps a post-Christmas tristesse had set in, to announce the introduction of the charges. I was fully aware that I would be accused of being some kind of latter-day Scrooge, but the line I took was responsible. It has been pointed out that parents pay taxes which go towards education, but parents are very well aware that unfortunately most of what is collected by way of taxation is being used to repay the borrowing that was incurred as a result of the live-now, pay-later philosophy of Fianna Fáil.
I am amazed to hear Deputies O'Rourke and Leyden ask that school transport charges be dropped completely in 1983 without their suggesting where the £5,500,000 that Fianna Fáil took off the Estimates is to come from. Do these Deputies believe that the extra money should be raised by way of taxation or of borrowing?
From where did the Minister for Health get the extra money?
Deputy O'Rourke has asked that the school transport charges be dropped but she has not responded to my invitation to her to put forward an alternative source of revenue. Deputy Lyons raised the question of bodies everywhere objecting to every measure that is taken. A Government who are governing properly do not expect to be congratulated for doing their job. It is a measure of the determination of this Government to govern that we are incurring such criticism. We have applied evenly and fairly across the board a range of economies and taxation. This is in direct contrast to the soft options that for so long were taken by Fianna Fáil.
Regarding the extraordinary use of words in The Cork Examiner I assure Deputy Lyons that I am not responsible for the exaggerations in that paper any more than I am responsible for the Skibbereen Eagle or for any other newspaper. The phrase to which the Deputy refers was recognised for the flight of fancy that it was.
Deputy Mac Giolla seemed to be adopting a constructive approach to the debate. He applauded my decision to consult and to discuss on those issues, but unfortunately he reverted to the whole question of everything being free for everyone with apparently no one in sight to pay. The same Deputy raised the question of all-Irish schools. These schools are doing extremely important work, and if it were possible to do so I would excuse them from charges, but unfortunately they are only one of very many large interest groups who have asked for a similar concession. The concession they already enjoy, that is that they take the distance to the nearest school in determining eligibility, continues as before. I might add that all-Irish schools enjoy a very much better pupil-teacher ratio and a higher rate of grant than is the case of very many other schools.
It is important that we consider very carefully this whole question of school transport charges. While appreciating the kind remarks and congratulations offered by Deputy Leyden in respect of my appointment, I seem to have disappointed him greatly. I am sorry about that.
The Minister has disappointed me very much.
The Deputy should not be surprised or disappointed at this stage because of any Minister not following the kind of action followed by Ministers of Fianna Fáil Governments in the past, that was to give in to every possible pressure and to run the country into further trouble. If the Deputy expects me to behave in that way he will be disappointed, because that is not the way I intend to behave.
I expect my popularity will evaporate even further as this Government proceed to do the job they were elected to do and which we believe the people wish us to do. I regret that Deputy Leyden joined Deputy O'Rourke and Fianna Fáil in general in a total disowning of the Book of Estimates for 1983. The statement that figures which appeared in that publication did not represent decisions must be one of the most significant statements that this debate has produced. It is tantamount to saying that some items in the Book of Estimates ought to be withdrawn as soon as the issues in question become uncomfortable.
I wish to make it clear to the House and to parents that the school transport charges are not being withdrawn, that the system remains fully in operation. Parents who have paid already have done so in the knowledge that they must contribute to school transport in order to preserve the extent of the system. If what I decided on last night is a climb down, so be it. I am not among those who are afraid to listen to representations. I am not a politician who is afraid to postpone something in order to think further about it. Through this debate I must assure the parents that there is no change in the plans but that we are considering a special arrangement for particular hardship cases, and that arrangement will be announced at the first possible opportunity. The situation remains as before. In this matter we have acted honourably and will continue to do so. That is in direct contrast to the kind of opportunism indulged in by the Opposition.
On a point of clarification, the Minister has said that the school transport system remains fully in operation. That is very significant. There is to be no change. The system is to remain fully in operation.
We move now to item No. 6.
Am I entitled to speak on the school transport charges?
Acting Chairman
No. I have called the next item.
On a point of information——
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is out of order.
I have sat here for the past three hours listening to the various statements and to the emotive verbiage of the people opposite and I should like to contribute now.
Acting Chairman
The Chair is operating the agreement reached between the Whips. If Members have a dispute they should consult their Whips.
On a point of order, the Deputy should consult his Whip.
Acting Chairman
That is not a point of order.
That is a matter for the Minister.