What is the situation now about time?
Private Members' Business. - School Transport: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy O'Rourke on Tuesday, 17 May 1983:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for the present chaos and confusion in the school transport scheme and for inflicting hardship on many thousands of families.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:—
"approves of the arrangements made by the Government in connection with the imposition of school transport charges to alleviate any hardship which might be caused to families by such charges."
—(Minister for Education.)
The motion gets three hours, and 26 minutes have now been taken up with the suspension and the division and those 26 minutes will have to be added on. Those 26 minutes will carry over into next week.
I was dealing with the issue of tickets and applications for tickets when I was interrupted. I made a statement that in the applications made prior to 27 April, the tickets issued prior to 6 May. There may be a few exceptions. I repeat that in almost all cases unless there are extenuating circumstances, and there may be such circumstances in some applications, tickets are issued within a maximum of six days. I venture to say that the picture I have drawn of information available in regard to the scheme of charges and the procedures to be followed in making payments and submitting medical cards is certainly not one of confusion. It is a straightforward procedure that has been made clear to all concerned.
I was dealing with the subject matter of the motion in which it is implied that the procedure has created chaos and confusion. It was alleged last night that the scheme is not working. It is hard to know what Deputy O'Rourke meant in her statement that the system does not work. I have explained at length what people have to do to get school transport. The majority both in the winter and the summer terms made valid application for their children and established their entitlement to the continued use of school transport. Those who have been refused admission to school buses are those who have not made the valid application in due time and have not yet got the appropriate validation ticket. The buses are running and those entitled to use them are being transported to schools. How then can the Deputy maintain the system is not working?
On a point of order. On a point of information——
There is no such point of order as a point of information.
I just want to ask a question.
A question is not in order.
I understood it was possible to ask a question on a point of information.
In most cases it is because the necessary charges were not paid for them by their parents that they could not avail of the school transport. What does Deputy O'Rourke want? Does she want these pupils taken up in the buses without paying and without regard to the unfairness of such an action towards the parents of those who made valid application? It should be borne in mind that those who have paid have got transport and those who have not paid are not getting transport.
Deputies
That is not true.
Does Deputy O'Rourke want the Government to flout the regulations without regard to the many who are prepared to meet the requirements set out? Indeed, were such an action taken, it could then be fairly said by the Deputy that the scheme is not working. I say the scheme is not working because it is being obstructed by some who are not prepared to pay. Let me remind Deputy O'Rourke and her colleagues in opposition that the charges are now a fact. If you do not pay your telephone bill or your ESB bill you are cut off. If you do not pay your television licence you are prosecuted. We are not talking about prosecuting anybody. What we are saying is that if you are qualified for transport——
The Minister is not concerned about the children.
He is hanging himself. Let him hang himself.
There are others who are not so concerned. Deputy O'Rourke claimed last evening that such a scheme would not have been implemented by Fianna Fáil. What is it possible to make of such a statement? What does the Deputy mean when she says it would not be implemented? We know Fianna Fáil framed and published Estimates which contained a shortfall of £5.4 million for school transport. We know the Fianna Fáil Minister for Education, Mr. Ger Brady, announced publicly on 18 November there would be charges for school transport and for post-primary pupils with a lower charge for junior pupils and a concession to take account of circumstances of members of large families. I should note at this stage that in all the discussion and in all the debate here it is quite extraordinary that not once has Deputy Brady appeared to take part in the discussion, to offer a contribution, or give an explanation. It is very strange.
The position here is that the amount we are asking the parents to contribute for school transport is somewhere in the region of £4.4 million. The provision made, and it was not contradicted by Deputy Brady, in the Book of Estimates, demanded a £5.4 million contribution from the very same parents and now we have all the furore because we accepted £1 million less. Is the Deputy now saying that Fianna Fáil in office framed Estimates which they subsequently ignored and announced schemes which they had no intention of implementing? If that is the case no wonder they lost the confidence of the people in the last general election. Granted they would not have implemented the present scheme because in their plans they gave no thought to questions of hardship and their proposals contained none of the concessions for the less well-off families which are contained in the Government's scheme.
The Government through the introduction of such a scheme is asking parents to contribute for school transport a not unreasonable amount. It is a question of providing and keeping the system in operation because the Government could have taken a decision to keep to the shortfall in the Book of Estimates, which was inherited by the present Government, not created by them, and could have said they would discontinue school transport to the tune of £5.4 million or else impose charges. That was the decision the Government had. I supported the Government's introduction of charges and I, as Minister responsible for school transport, will operate the scheme to the best of my ability despite the fact that there is opposition from the Opposition Deputies and there is also, I understand, organised opposition elsewhere to the school transport system. I would say to those Deputies who are actively organising opposition to the implementation of the school transport scheme that they should think again because what they are doing is, in fact, encouraging people to break the law. First of all, let them examine their scheme and the provision of £5.4 million. It is extraordinary that throughout this debate we have had no concrete proposals from them as to how they proposed to collect that £5.4 million.
The people opposite are in Government.
Deputy O'Rourke stated that heretofore Irish-speaking schools had positive discrimination in their favour by way of a transport subsidy and that this had now disappeared. She made a strong plea for its continuance. There was and is no such subsidy. Transport to these schools was formerly free to eligible pupils, as it was to eligible pupils attending schools other than all-Irish schools. The all-Irish schools, in the matter of transport as indeed in relation to grants and staffing, had and still have particular advantages not enjoyed by other schools. People attending such schools are regarded as eligible for transport by virtue of distance to the nearest all-Irish school notwithstanding the proximity of other schools. There is no discrimination in favour of all-Irish schools in the scheme of transport charges. The pupils, who are generally carried much longer distances than other pupils, are expected to pay the same charges and benefit from the same concessions as do other pupils. To waive the charges in the case of pupils attending all-Irish schools would be invidious and unfair to the users of that service. If there were concessions of that type the amount would have to be met elsewhere.
We heard a lot from Deputy H. Byrne and others in relation to a specific case in Wexford. In this connection I want to quote from a letter I have received from that particular community in Wexford. I am sorry, I appear to have mislaid that letter.
Like my form that was mislaid, of which I have a copy here.
The Deputy's form was being looked after once it had been submitted. We have heard a lot about Taghmon regarding the position obtaining there and the obstruction of the bus there.
The Minister and Deputy Doyle have until 8.05 p.m.
I shall conclude because I want to give Deputy Doyle ten minutes. We have heard a lot about Taghmon, about the discrimination against pupils there and the position in relation to the obstruction of the school bus. I am sure Deputy H. Byrne knows all about the obstruction. I might read an extract from a letter I received from the people in Taghmon:
A small charge should be payable by all parents regardless of their circumstances. The decision to exempt the children of medical card holders was arbitary and not necessarily equitable.
The people who have paid — in many cases at very considerable personal sacrifice — feel duped when they realise that many who could afford it better simply have not paid and are still availing of the service.
I have no argument with Deputy Byrne or with the good people of Taghmon regarding the latter sentiment. The only difference is that the Government have taken action to meet this point and this action is now being deplored by Deputy Byrne. We now know where he stands. He was all talk with no action. Does he support those people or does he disagree with them?
With regard to the first point made in the letter, the Government categorically do not agree with the levying of a charge on all parents and will continue to have regard to levels of education and parental circumstances in regard to the school bus charges. That can be the only equitable approach to take into account the circumstances of parents.
I want to give ten minutes to Deputy Doyle so I shall conclude——
The Minister cannot give her ten minutes at this stage.
The school transport service has given good service to the young people of Ireland for many years. We are facing and have faced——
On a point of order——
Deputy H. Byrne on a point of order.
Who wrote that letter the Minister is talking about?
That is not a point of order, Deputy.
It is typical of the obstruction that has gone on, which is disgraceful.
(Interruptions.)
We are facing, and have faced, a situation in which it is not possible — because of the economic situation of the country — to maintain services at the level available in the past without asking for an extra effort from all concerned. It is the view of the Government that the school transport service should, if possible, be maintained at its present level and, in order to do so, they have asked for a contribution towards the running of the service from those who avail themselves of it. Generous concessions have been made to take account of the circumstances of large families and of families for whom the payment of school transport charges would constitute undue financial hardship. Those who are withholding and encouraging the withholding of school bus charges must examine their hearts in this matter. If the contributions are not paid, if the applications are not submitted — and this is a point I want to issue a warning on — then it will not be possible to continue the school transport service on its present basis within the resources available. I would advise parents and those Deputies who support parents to obstruct the school transport service to think again because, unless this contribution is made, it is possible it could jeopardise the whole school transport system in the future.
Deputy Doyle has until 8.05 p.m.
I must thank the Minister of State——
On a point of order——
They do not know what points of order are, a Cheann Comhairle.
Deputy Browne on a point of order.
In the statement made by Deputy Doyle last evening in the House in which she described Deputy Browne and myself as adopting Nazi-style tactics——
That is not a point of order. That is a matter for reply. Deputy Browne will resume his seat——
On a point of order I would ask Deputy Doyle——
Deputy Browne will resume his seat, please. If Deputy Browne does not resume his seat I will have to ask him to leave the House.
A Cheann Comhairle, I am asking you to ask Deputy Doyle to——
I do not want to be continuing this. I am appealing to Deputy Browne to resume his seat. Will Deputy Browne not resume his seat?
A Cheann Comhairle, as was said in this House by Deputy Doyle——
Deputy Browne will now leave the House and I am ordering him out of the House, in accordance with Standing Orders, for the remainder of today's sitting.
More free publicity for him.
If Deputy Browne does not leave the House I will have to have him named. We must have order here or the whole system will break down.
I am asking Deputy Doyle to withdraw the remarks made last evening about——
I name Deputy Browne.
I am calling the Minister to name Deputy Browne. I am naming the Deputy and I am asking the Minister to propose his suspension from the service of the House.
Deputy Browne withdrew from the Chamber.
(Interruptions.)
It is vindictiveness, that is all.
Deputy Avril Doyle has been interrupted for that length of time and nothing can be done about it.
I should like to thank the Minister of State for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this most important issue. We are tired listening to the destructive drivel from the Opposition benches. It is obvious it will be years before they are in a position to put their money where their mouths are judging from their carry-on in this debate.
I should like to refer to the last point raised by Deputy Browne before he left the House. As the record of last evening's debate testifies beyond doubt — and as I believe Deputy Byrne referred to earlier this evening — what I said last evening was in reply to a remark addressed to me and my colleague, Deputy Yates, by Deputy H. Byrne——
An interruption.
——in an interruption I said to the Deputy that the only confusion in Wexford is concerted by Deputy Byrne and his colleagues, that Fianna Fáil are creating confusion in Wexford deliberately using children like the Nazis used their children. I was applying that remark to Fianna Fáil and not, as Deputy Byrne tried to imply today, to the people or parents of Taghmon——
(Interruptions.)
I think, Deputy, that any reference to Nazis or comparing anybody to Nazis should be withdrawn.
I accept that fully and I am prepared to withdraw that, but I want to make it quite clear that I was not referring to people in Taghmon——
To whom was the Deputy referring?
I accept your ruling on the matter, Sir, and I am prepared to stand by it. I accept the Chair's ruling on that completely.
While we are on this point — and a lot has been said about it by both sides of the House — I would point out that parents and children who had paid their tickets for this term were intimidated into getting on the school bus in the last fortnight in Taghmon. They were called scabs if they got on the bus, and did not stand to the side, and they were called blueshirts. I do not condone this type of behaviour. Any legitimate, democratic protest I will accept, discuss and try to resolve as I would any problem, as I have always done while I have been involved in politics. I abhor any type of activity that would put our children in the frontline when the argument is between politicians and parents in this country. Our children should be left out of it; the harsh realities of life will come to them soon enough. I deplore such tactics and anybody who would try to condone them.
I should like now to get on with the real matter before us. There were many areas in Wexford with genuine and legitimate problems. I am afraid Wexford seems to have been prominent in this debate. I would point out that in Tagoat, Clonroche, Adamstown and Rathangan there were small problems which were resolved satisfactorily by any TD who happened to be in the area and could help. That will always be the case. Any genuine problem will be listened to and fairly resolved.
Again I must refer to what Deputy Gerard Brady said last November. The short memory of the Opposition would be amusing if it were not so serious. He said that consideration was being given to the question of arrangements to be made for the implementation of such a charge at secondary school level. He never even mentioned medical card exemptions. How far down the road this Government have come in being humane and trying to see that those who can least afford the charges will not have to pay them. There may be problems with just exempting medical card holders but the medical card system ensures, in principle at any rate, that those least able to pay will not have to do so and this Government will stand behind them.
Deputies Albert Reynolds, John Wilson and Hugh Conaghan have 30 minutes between them.
It is regrettable that the heat engendered in this argument has risen to such levels tonight. Some of the remarks thrown across the floor during last night's debate have not helped to keep down the temperature tonight. The fact that so many rural Deputies are here expressing their views on this matter is a clear indication of the problems which exist. I have not come here to talk cheap politics. I cannot comment on what happened in Wexford. There were remarks about shouts of "scab". I would ask whether Deputy Doyle was present at that gathering.
Every word I spoke was the truth.
The Deputy should address the Chair.
The attitude taken by certain Members in relation to emotive remarks which they were not present to hear is wrong. If Deputy Doyle wishes to correct the record, that is her business.
(Interruptions.)
I will not have interruptions from either side of the House.
I did not interrupt anybody and I hope not to be interrupted again. The Minister of State, Deputy Creed, is a sound, sane, sensible man. When he sees so many Deputies coming into this House and making these complaints he should realise that they are not artificial complaints. I would totally reject the allegation that we on this side are trying to organise obstruction of the operations of the school transport scheme. There is no need for us to do it.
I will not talk about what happened in other areas but I will give some examples which I can stand over as factual, having spoken to the parents and children concerned. I will hand the names and addresses of these people to the Minister or his officials if they wish to check them out. The Minister should not bury his head in the sand and think that everything in the garden is rosy. Far from it.
Somebody said that this was a mismanaged, bungled operation. I could not give it a proper description. The Minister gave details of dates of applications. I can give him details of a family, the names of whom I can supply after the debate, who not only sent in their money at Christmas but paid £10 too much. No ticket was issued for the Christmas to Easter term. They subsequently sent in the money for the Easter to summer term, notwithstanding the fact that they had not received either a ticket or a receipt for the money paid. Nothing happened for the first term and the children travelled on the bus, as did other children who had not paid. No attempt was made to sort out the problem, with the result that some people paid and travelled on the bus while children from families who did not pay travelled on the same bus. By the end of the term no action had been taken, except for U-turns and changes of decision and the Minister knows quite well what I am talking about. He stood up in this House to answer a debate on the school transport system at the same time as his Minister was outside in the public arena pulling the rug from under him and making a different decision. Is it any wonder that the management of this whole operation has been bungled when there is no co-operation between the Ministers? That is a fact which cannot be denied denied.
The people who had paid the money without receiving a ticket or a receipt decided to pay by cheque for the Easter to summer term. The cheque came back to the parents in the normal way through the bank but again they did not receive a ticket or a receipt. Last Monday week the child who had been carried into Lanesboro was left there in the rain to find her own way home without having any means to contact her parents, together with almost all the other children who had travelled on the bus. She was taken to school and left in Lanesboro to find her own way home, yet she had overpaid her money. Nobody did anything about it. The following day her father took a day off from work and drove to the relevant office to get a ticket. He was told there was no trace of the money so he produced the cheque showing that the money had been paid through the bank. He then paid again but did not get a ticket. He had to make three trips to get a ticket for which he had already paid twice, having overpaid by £10 in the first instance. This is a factual case and I can supply the name and address.
Two buses went into Lanesboro last Monday week and the children were left on the road to find their way home. One bus passed by with four passengers and the other bus went by another route without any passengers. The children had to walk home in the rain and no attempt was made to contact their parents. Whoever made this decision is guilty of gross irresponsibility and should resign or be fired. That is the only answer the parents and children will accept.
It is bureaucracy gone wrong, that is all.
What would Deputy Skelly know, living in Castleknock?
It is fact and I will hand the names to the Minister.
Where does the buck stop? The Deputy should come to Longford-Westmeath.
Medical card holders applied for their tickets within the required time but did not get them and people were put off the bus. It was only after the intervention of a Sister of Mercy in charge of one school that two of the children were taken home. What sort of Government would attempt to implement such a scheme and tell us in the House that it is working? It is not working. When they made decisions, why did they not stick by them? The pressure came on and they changed their decision.
In a written reply to a question from Deputy Hugh Byrne the Minister for Education stated that anticipated revenue from additional subscriptions this year would be in the region of £1 million. How was that figure arrived at? In the very first week that the Government were in power the Minister for Education, the Minister for Labour and the Taoiseach gave a commitment to pay £1 million to the Avoca miners in County Wicklow who are breaking the law and would not allow in a receiver. They gave that promise during the general election campaign.
(Interruptions.)
Ridiculous nonsense.
Order.
Go back to the Strawberry Beds.
The Government threw away £1 million to a few hundred workers in Avoca Mines who refused to obey the law of the land. Over there sits the party of law and order. It was stupid of the Government to implement this decision a few weeks before the end of term. As the matter had not been sorted out the Government should have let it run for the last two weeks of the term. People who paid their money in the first term did not get receipts or tickets and they waited to see what would happen. They saw that people who had not paid in the first term got free transport and this continued for part of the second term. What were the people who had paid originally supposed to do? The Government have said that they gave a gentle hint about what would happen but what happened was that children were left on the roadside after school. The situation was scandalous. The people who made the decision were irresponsible and uncaring. In this, as in many other cases, the Government made the wrong decision. The sensible thing for them to have done was to leave the matter run and to sort it out before next September.
Parents are well aware of what happened to their children. I am speaking only of the Longford area and other Deputies can say what happened in their areas. However, the fact that so many Deputies have spoken on this matter is a clear indication that there is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. The whole affair was badly handled. Children are suffering and they are looking to us for a solution. The Government should have allowed the matter to run in the same way for the remaining two weeks. They should pay the costs and we will applaud them if they do that.
Knock Airport would pay for many fares.
The Chair should name some Deputies on the other side for a change.
I did not interrupt anyone.
Order. I am calling Deputy Conaghan.
9 May will go down in history as a black day for the children of Ireland. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate in defence of children in my constituency and in my county. I am sure that Ministers and Government Deputies who toured Donegal in the past three weeks got the message from parents with regard to the Government's proposals concerning school transport. The result of the by-election reflected the attitude of the people in Donegal in relation to the Government's handling of the matter. That should have encouraged the Government to rethink their present attitude but I do not think they have done so. They will insist on going ahead with something that the people totally reject.
If the Government and the Minister had any political wisdom they would not have introduced charges for school transport for pupils in second-level education. There is bitter resentment among parents about this matter and this is quite natural. Parental instinct is to move in defence of one's offspring when an injustice has been done against them. The charges discriminate against rural children irrespective of what the Government may say——
It is obvious that the Government do not care about this matter. Deputy Skelly is reading a paper and this shows disrespect for the motion before the House.
Deputies should not read newspapers in the Chamber.
On a point of order, may I have a copy of the script from which the Deputy is reading.
I take it the Deputy is reading from notes. I am calling on Deputy Conaghan to continue.
The introduction of this charge in relation to the way it applies to catchment boundaries will discriminate against some children. In many instances children have been compelled to go to schools outside their catchment boundaries and this is a matter the Government should consider seriously. Pupils who have to travel outside their catchment boundaries should get the same facilities as those who can stay within their own areas.
It is wrong to use medical cards as a guideline in determining whether a child should have free transport. A medical card is granted to the holder purely for health purposes for himself and his family. It should be checked only by the doctor or personnel from the health board. It is reprehensible and degrading for any family to have to present their medical card to a public transport company. It is wrong that officials from a semi-State body, in this case CIE, should be in a position to examine medical cards with a view to deciding what charges to impose for transport. I disagree totally with the use of the medical card as a guideline in determining whether a child should have free school transport.
Free education was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government and was based on the republican ideal that all children of the nation should be treated equally. Does the Minister consider that the way this scheme has been applied is treating all children equally? I do not think it is. I ask why children from towns where most of the secondary schools are situated should have free education irrespective of means? Fianna Fáil are committed to equality in the matter of education but is there equality in the present system? There is none. There is discrimination against rural children. This seems to be the policy of the Government.
The Minister visited County Donegal for the opening of an extension to the Carndonagh Community School, one of the largest community schools in the Republic. She also opened an extension to Buncrana Vocational School. Both extensions were provided for and built under the Fianna Fáil Government. The Minister had the privilege of opening them.
On the Minister's visit to Donegal she met a deputation from ASTI and the Teachers Union of Ireland who made her aware of the attitude of the teachers and the parents to this particular scheme the Government have introduced. The following was stated in the document on school transport charges handed to her:
The introduction of bus charges mocks the principle of free education and their implementation will prove laborious and uneconomic.
Inishowen is the most northerly point in the country. The area has a population of approximately 24,000 people. The only thing they have is a good comprehensive educational system. It is unfortunate that the Government should penalise the many underprivileged people in that area by depriving them of the right to free education. The agreement to establishing the community school at Carndonagh was conditional on the availability of free transport for all.
I ask the Minister to reconsider her attitude to this scheme, scrap it, consider the attitude of the parents to the scheme and introduce a new scheme between now and September which will give equality to all the children. That is all this side of the House are asking for.
I have very little time.
If the Deputy reports progress he will have one minute the next night.
I want to take up the point made by Deputy Conaghan. The basic philosophy behind the provision of school transport was that the poor man's child would have an equal chance with the wealthier man's child. This scheme does not do that. No amount of talking, shouting, propaganda or agitation will disprove my statement. If you take the catchment area scheme, £150 per annum is a serious imposition on a working man and his family. Nobody can find a scintilla of evidence in what Fianna Fáil said they would do indicating that the catchment boundary area pupils would be charged anything like £150 per annum.
Remarks were made on the opposite side of the House that required a degree of audacity which is hard to understand. Nobody for one moment could suggest that Fianna Fáil would impose £150 per annum on any working man to take his children to school. The Minister's statement last night shows she has not the remotest clue what the conditions are in rural Ireland regarding transport to schools. It is so cosy, it is so bourgeois, it is unbelievable. She said they chose to go to school outside the area in which they live.
Deputy Conaghan has already pointed out some instances where this is not true. I know it is not true. Some areas started sending children to a school where there was a post-intermediate certificate course available when no such course was available in their catchment area. People are being penalised to the extent of £150 per annum because there was not a senior cycle available in their area when this scheme started.
We are told there is no hardship or confusion. My opinion is that there is hardship. The whole scheme has caused chaos because of indecision; the name of the foal is hardship. Hardship is being experienced up and down the country and in my county. It is being experienced in County Clare, as Deputy Daly could tell if he had time, in County Donegal in the area Deputy Conaghan spoke about, and in the area we were operating in for the by-election.
And Longford and Westmeath.
Longford and Westmeath have been very well documented already. There is, without a doubt, the poor law syndrome operating here. If Oliver asks for one more term free transport to school he is subjected to this examination. The medical card holders are identified. I will tell the House where. The Ceann Comhairle knows where I am talking about. There is a comprehensive school in Cootehill and one bus went to that school with 12 people out of 45 when this scheme began to operate. Will the Minister tell me that those people were not picked out, that the finger was not pointed at them, that we were not back to the old poor law system where there was one law for the rich and another for the poor?
One of the most confusing things that has happened is that pupils whose parents did not pay for the second term but paid for the third term were given transport to school. When the people who paid for the second term saw this and that they were being discriminated against, they no longer paid any money. They found they could not get on to the bus. The Minister referred to this in her speech but she did not resolve the problem. How could one expect a man to pay a second time when he knew his neighbour had got away without paying for the second term immediately after Christmas.
Is that indecision? Is that clear administration? What is it? We are told there is no trouble, there is no confusion, that everything is all right. Everything is not all right. This House knows it and I am sure, everybody, apart from the nucleus of people based in Dublin 4, who have not the remotest idea what happens once you go west of the Castleknock gate, knows it. The rest of the country knows it and so do the rural Deputies of the Fine Gael Party.
The examinations were mentioned. They are only round the corner. Some people are very robust and can take examinations in their stride. Some are sensitive and cannot take examinations in their stride. Pushing them off a bus, causing them confusion at this time shows a hard-hearted approach that should not be found in a Department as sensitive as the Department of Education.
I submit that the Minister is culpable. I know the Minister of State is not responsible in this regard, that the Minister goes her own way. I know, for example, she changed the scheme while he was defending the old scheme in the House. The poor man escaped out of here with a face as red as a beetroot. I do not blame him but he has manfully tried to remain loyal to her. I do not know how he could in the circumstances.
Let the Minister, for God's sake, have another look at the catchment area problem, let her try to realise that £150 per annum is too great an imposition on a working man just because he is sending his children to a certain school and has established that tradition. In her speech the Minister shows a complete ignorance of what is happening in schools in rural Ireland. The father of two haemophiliacs in Cavan town was in touch with me and was more than upset because one of his children had to be taken to hospital in Dublin as a result of what was done on the side of the road due to the hamfisted way in which this scheme was put into operation.
Debate adjourned.