Deputy Naughten has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the non-availability of school transport for a child — details supplied — in County Roscommon, the subject matter of Question No. 215 of 15 April 1986.
Adjournment Debate. - County Roscommon School Transport.
I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me raise this matter on the Adjournment. While it may not appear to be a very important issue, since it affects only one child in a remote part of the country, nevertheless it is important because I believe the child concerned is being deprived of school transport simply because the child is a girl. The boys in that area all enjoy transport to Runnamate national school while this child, because she is a girl, is deprived of transport.
The case to which I refer is that of Anne Marie McDonagh, who is five years of age and who started school at Easter 1985. On commencing school the school applied for a pass for Anne Marie McDonagh to Runnamoate national school. Anne Marie McDonagh lives in an area deemed to be in the Castleplunkett national school catchment area as far as education for girls is concerned. This is because of the closure of an old monastery school which, when open, catered for boys and the boys in that area were deemed to be in the Runnamoate catchment area. When the pass for Anne Marie McDonagh was applied for it was refused because she was deemed to be a member of a new family.
I might point out that in September 1985 I discussed this matter with the Department. They informed me that girls in that area — because they or their brothers were already in attendance at Runnamoate national school — were allowed fare-paying facilities. I want to point out that Anne Marie McDonagh is the fifth member of a family, with four brothers, all of whom attended the Runnamoate national school. If one of those boys had been a girl then Anne Marie would have qualified for transport. That is how ridiculous the situation appears to be.
I have raised this matter to impress on the Minister the importance of providing school transport for this child. When that departmental decision was appealed it was pointed out that the child did not represent a member of a new family in that her four brothers had attended the school before her. The Department stated that the reason she was refused transport was that she was the first girl in that family to go to that school and that, therefore, they were deemed to be a new family. Naturally that decision was appealed on the grounds that this child wished to attend the school in her parish. I need not point out the importance of this to parents in rural areas, parents who wish to send their child to the school within the parish for First Holy Communion, Confirmation purposes and so on. The Minister will be well aware of the problems this can cause. Her parent was informed that she could not get transport without receiving permission from the national school of the catchment area in which she was deemed to be. I would point out to the Minister that the McDonagh family were the only family in that area asked to seek such permission. I would point out to the Minister also that all of the children living in that area enjoy transport to Runnamoate national school with the exception of Anne Marie McDonagh.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why this family are being victimised by the Department unless it is because of a threat of strike action by the principal in Castleplunkett national school. Furthermore, I believe, if that is the case, that this is intimidation of the kind the Department of Education should not have any part in. I do not believe the Department should allow one teacher to dictate whether or not one child should be afforded school transport. Nor do I believe that they should allow one child to be victimised or one family penalised. That child must be taken to school four miles each day while the children living each side of her are given fare-paying facilities or, if they are boys, free transport.
In 1985 the Minister of State's predecessor granted an additional school run in that area which eliminated all other transport problems and, God knows, there were many problems encountered in the Runnamoate catchment area. Mrs. McDonagh, along with the other parents, met the Minister of State, Deputy Creed. As a result of that meeting an additional school run was granted which eliminated all the transport difficulties being encountered at that time, except in the case of the one family and the one child about whom I am speaking this evening. I am satisfied that the only reason this child is being deprived of transport is because of her sex. That is a terrible indictment of the Department of Education. There are other matters I shall discuss with the Minister privately and which I believe should make this little girl eligible for school transport. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that a bus ticket is issued to this child.
I appreciate the late hour and I shall not detain the House any longer. I appeal to the Minister to examine this case with a view to granting transport to the child concerned.
I want to thank Deputy Naughten for affording me an opportunity to reply to him on this matter. I should say that it is not my intention, as Minister of State, to discriminate against any child in the country.
Before dealing specifically with the case of school transport for the pupil in question, I should like to outline briefly the main purpose of the primary school transport scheme and the general conditions applying to the provision of school transport. The main purpose of the scheme is to enable children, who might otherwise suffer undue hardship in doing so, to make a regular attendance at school. The scheme does not operate in order to afford a choice of school to children and it was never meant to do so. Therefore, except in cases of school amalgamations, eligibility for transport is determined by reference to a pupil's nearest open suitable school.
As regards the general conditions applying to the provision of school transport, the terms of the primary school transport scheme state that, in order to be eligible for school transport, pupils under ten years of age must live at least two miles from their nearest school. In the case of children over ten years of age, the distance criterion governing eligibility is three miles from their nearest school.
It is pertinent to note that these age-distance conditions for eligibility accord with the provisions of the School Attendance Act under which parents' liability to prosecution under the Act for not sending their children to school is mitigated on grounds of accessibility. Accessibility is defined in the Act as a school which is within two miles for children under ten years of age and within three miles for children over ten years. As I have said, these are the age-distance conditions of eligibility obtaining in the primary school transport scheme.
In the specific case raised by the Deputy, the pupil lives 3.2 miles from Castleplunkett national school, which is her nearest open suitable school. Therefore, under the terms of the primary school transport scheme, the pupil is eligible for free school transport to Castleplunkett and there is a suitable transport service to that school. I understand that the service comes to within a quarter of a mile of her home. Therefore, if an application for school transport to Castleplunkett national school from September next is made on behalf of this pupil, arrangements will be made to facilitate her. The pupil lives 4.2 miles from Runnamoate national school, which she attends, and transport is being sought on her behalf to that school.
Under the terms of the primary school transport scheme, where spare seats are available on special school services after all pupils who are eligible for free transport have been accommodated, concessionary fare-paying facilities may be granted subject to certain specified conditions. One of these conditions is:
Where transport is sought on behalf of basically eligible children to a school other than the nearest school or appropriate school of amalgamation, the granting of transport may be considered only if documentary evidence of the agreement of the authorities of the nearest school or of the school of amalgamation as appropriate is submitted to the Department of Education.
It will be seen from this that in order to comply with the terms of the primary school transport scheme an application for concessionary fare-paying transport on behalf of the pupil in question to Runnamoate national school, which is not her nearest school, may be considered only if documentary evidence of the agreement of the nearest school, Castleplunkett national school, is submitted to my Department. As this condition has not been complied with, the pupil is not eligible for transport to Runnamoate national school and I have no option but to refuse transport facilities to her to that school.
Deputy Naughten has referred to a decision in October 1984 to provide school transport for the pupils of Runnamoate national school. It appears that the Deputy may not be aware or does not recall that it was agreed at about that time that girls who were currently attending Runnamoate national school and who were in receipt of fare-paying transport would be allowed to retain this facility on an incidental basis, that is, where there are spare seats available after all pupils who are eligible for free transport have been accommodated.
It was subsequently arranged that the younger sisters of girls who had attended Runnamoate national school would be granted incidental fare-paying transport also. It was not purported that these arrangements would be extended to new pupils who did not have older sisters who were attending, or had attended, Runnamoate national school. As the pupil in question here had not started school at that time — she started at Easter 1985 — and had no older sisters who attended Runnamoate, the arrangements did not and were not meant to apply to her.
I realise and accept that the whole matter is complicated by the fact that boys from the area in which the pupil in question lives are eligible, under amalgamation arrangements, for transport to Runnamoate national school and that some girls, including neighbours of the pupil in question, who live nearer to Castleplunkett, are availing themselves of fare-paying transport facilities to Runnamoate. I will explain.
Until 1971, the appropriate school for boys from the area in question was the High Lake Monastery School. That school catered exclusively for boys. When it was closed in 1971, the pupils of the school were provided with free transport to Runnamoate, under the normal arrangements which operate in the case of a school which is closed and amalgamated with another. Boys who live in the area of the High Lake school continue to get free transport to Runnamoate.
Because of the availability of transport from the area to Runnamoate, some girls opted to attend Runnamoate and are availing themselves of school transport facilities. The management authorities of their appropriate school, Castleplunkett, did not object to these arrangements until they found that because of a falling school enrolment, they were in danger of losing an assistant teaching post. I accept the Deputy's reference to the principal teacher there. I am sure there is anxiety about jobs in Castleplunkett.
The Castleplunkett school authorities have written to the Department and have indicated that they would object to transport to Runnamoate national school being provided unconditionally for new pupils who live in the catchment area of their school. Castleplunkett school is in danger of losing one of its three teaching posts if its enrolment falls much below its present level. Such a situation would be hastened if transport continued to be provided to Runnamoate for pupils whose nearest appropriate school is Castleplunkett.
In these circumstances, I think that the fears of the Castleplunkett school authorities are undoubtedly justified. I hope the Deputy will appreciate, therefore, that under the terms of the school transport scheme and in all the circumstances, an application for transport to Runnamoate national school for the pupil in question may not be considered by my Department.
Deputy Naughten referred to some other personal circumstances pertaining to this case which he does not wish to raise publicly here. I assure the Deputy that I am quite prepared to discuss these matters in confidence with him. Having dealt with many school transport schemes while on the back benches of this House, it would not be my wish in any way to discriminate against any child attending primary schools in Ireland.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24 April 1986.