Vol. 490 No. 7
20 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Education and Science the discussions, if any, he has had to date with relevant organisations in relation to the school transport review report; the status of this report; and when he proposes to implement changes to the school transport service. [11309/98]
The school transport review committee was set up by my predecessor in January 1996. The committee undertook a comprehensive study of the school transport scheme and the recommendations in its report deal with a broad range of transport issues.
The committee publicly invited submissions from interested parties as part of its work and 324 submissions were received. These submissions, which reflected the views of a wide range of interested parties, were taken into account in so far as possible when the report was being drawn up. I received the report in September 1997 and it is currently being evaluated in the Department. The report was published on 21 January 1998 and has been circulated to various interests.
The contents of the report have given rise to extensive debate. A number of responses have been received by my Department which are currently under examination. Prior to and subsequent to the publication of the report I have had extensive discussions with a number of individuals who are members of the relevant organisations.
I am finalising my submission to Government on this matter. I have asked that invitations be extended to Pambo, Bus Éireann and the National Parents Council, primary and post-primary, to meet me before I send my final submission to Government. In the meantime I have directed that the recommendations in the report which have negligible or no cost implications should be accepted and implemented.
The recommendations in the report, including those concerning the introduction of new fees and increasing current transport charges, do not necessarily reflect Government policy.
I am delighted the Minister of State will meet the National Parents Council because it is an integral part of the system. Is the Minister of State aware of the safety review undertaken by the Department of the Environment and Local Government? Is he aware that one of the recommendations of the report, which was recently completed, is that the current ratio of three pupils to two seats should be maintained for people up to the age of 19 years?
What is the Minister of State's opinion of the ratio in view of the severe overcrowding on many school buses? Students who are 17 or 18 years of age are the same size as adults and three of them must squeeze into two seats. A large number of school bags and sports gear must also be piled onto the buses and they are left lying in the aisles. A large number of students must either sit on the floor or stand. What is the Minister of State's opinion of the ratio?
I am aware of the study and its conclusion regarding the ratio. The Deputy is aware that the Bristow school transport review committee also considered this area and declined to make any recommendations. It stated specifically that it was a matter for the Department of the Environment and Local Government which at the time was conducting or was about to conduct the study to which he refers or had flagged that it was about to announce it. I have received a number of representations from various people in my constituency and throughout the country concerning the 3:2 ratio. The view has been frequently expressed that it should be changed, given that people of a certain age tend to be physically larger now than they were when the ratio was first introduced.
The Bristow committee concluded that we should generate more income exclusively from charges to improve the school bus transport service. I am adopting a wider remit in my submissions to Government. I will point to the option of increasing charges, thereby generating extra revenue along the lines suggested by Bristow, but with one exception — we have decided medical card holders will not be charged. Another way to generate more revenue is to obtain more Exchequer funding. This means there are three options: to increase charges, obtain more Exchequer funding or a combination of both.
I do not know what the outcome of the Government's deliberations will be on what I send them, but if sufficient revenue is generated to sufficiently improve the service, I would be prepared to examine the ratio. To change it along the lines the Deputy suggests would require additional expenditure on the school transport system. If I obtain or generate more funding or get agreement on how more can be raised to run the system, I have various improvements in mind. The ratio is not top of my list; special needs pupils are. If sufficient revenue is generated, I am prepared to examine it sympathetically given the representations I have received.
Did the Minister of State or the Department make a submission to the Department of the Environment and Local Government on this safety review report? The estimated cost for reducing the ratio to two pupils to every two seats is approximately £6 million.
I was not invited to make a submission, but I am aware that the Department of the Environment was in touch with my Department on the issue and consulted some of my officials. I do not know the content of those conversations but there would be no difficulty in finding out for the Deputy what our recommendations were in that regard. I will obtain the information and communicate with him.
Am I correct in my interpretation of what the Minister has said that there is a possibility and even a probability of increased charges and of new ones being introduced in the free bus scheme?
It requires additional funding to improve the school bus service and there are three options for raising that revenue. At present the special needs budget is taking up an increasing proportion of the school transport budget and I predict that will continue. A recent report by the Ombudsman stated that cases concerning pupils with special needs had to be decided on merit, not by arbitrary restriction. I am sure the courts would take the same view and rightly so. If the money allocated to the school transport budget remains static or increases by the rate of inflation each year, it will create a situation whereby the special needs pupils will take priority and the service to other pupils will be gradually run down. If the existing level of service is to be maintained, a level with which many people are unhappy, and the necessary improvements for special needs pupils introduced, which I am sure the courts will compel us to introduce anyway, additional funding must be found.
The Exchequer contributes some £40.5 million annually to school transport. Some £5 million is contributed by parents by way of charges. If additional funding is to be obtained, it does not take a mathematical genius to work out that there are only three options available: to increase charges to parents, to seek additional Exchequer funding or to adopt a combination of both. I believe we are morally obliged to maintain the existing level of service and I am committed to improving it. That will cost more money and it is correct to say that may involve an increase in charges.
Arising from the High Court judgment in the O'Donoghue case, is it the position that the State is obliged to provide for the needs of all students and, therefore, money for that should come from the Exchequer and not by raiding the overall budget?
We are moving away from the substance of the question.
Yes. I have referred to a report we received from the Ombudsman concerning his decision in a recent case. The reasoning in the O'Donoghue judgment is along the same lines. I am sure the courts will take the view that pupils with special needs have a priority and that, if they seek a reasonable level of transport and bring the State to court to obtain it, they will be successful. That means we will have to spend more money. Bristow identified £3 million as the figure for minimal improvements. We will have to spend more money from the budget on special needs cases and that will mean that, unless the overall budget is increased either by Exchequer funding or increased charges, the service for others will be run down. Whether the money should come from the Exchequer or by way of increased charges will be a matter for the Government.
Give us a clue.
I have my own views on that and will be making detailed submissions to the Government in that regard. I expect a decision shortly, I hope in time for the start of the next school year. As regards Deputy Richard Bruton's intervention, there is an old legal maxim in Latin, nemo dat quod non habet— no one gives what he does not have. I cannot tell the Deputy what I do not know.
