Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 8 Apr 2004

School Transport: Presentation.

This meeting has been convened for the purpose of discussing school transport. As the Chairman of the committee has been detained elsewhere, I am standing in for him.

On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the representatives of the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Johnny Bracken, principal officer in the teacher administration section, and his colleagues, Mr. Camillus Hogan, assistant principal, and Mr. Adrian Healy, higher executive officer in the school transport section. I also welcome, from the school transport appeals board, Mr. Emmet Cotter, and his colleagues, Mr. John Falvey and Mr. Tom D'Arcy.

Before we begin, I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Bracken to make his presentation. There will be a vote in the House at approximately 1 p.m. We will try to have things wrapped up by then. I accept it is a short timeframe but, if possible, we will conclude our deliberations at that time.

Mr. Johnny Bracken

I am a principal officer in the primary branch. I also have responsibility for school transport at primary and post-primary level. I am accompanied by Camillus Hogan and Adrian Healy. Both are based in the school transport section in Tullamore and deal exclusively with that matter.

The provision of organised school transport for children dates from the early part of the last century. A series of ad hoc schemes were operated from 1910 to the 1960s to ensure schools were accessible to children of school-going age. Responsibility for running these schemes was vested in school managers who received grants to cover costs. The school transport scheme as we know it was established by the Department in 1967. This coincided with the introduction of free post-primary education, which led to an increased demand for transport for children at both primary and post-primary levels.

Eligibility for school transport is basically determined by distance from either the nearest national school in the case of primary school pupils and to the nearest centre in the case of post-primary pupils. The scheme was designed to cater for children who might otherwise have difficulty going to school on a regular basis. Bus Éireann is responsible for the operation of the scheme on behalf of the Department through a network of 11 regional offices. It plans routes, employs school bus drivers, contracts services, and checks for compliance with legal requirements, safety etc.

Currently, the scheme caters for approximately 140,000 pupils, 80,000 at post-primary level and 60,000 at primary level. Included in these figures are approximately 9,000 special needs pupils. There are over 2,900 vehicles servicing in the region of 5,000 routes. There are approximately 1,150 contractors supplying in the region of 2,300 vehicles, including minibuses and taxis. In its direct operation under the scheme, Bus Éireann utilises over 600 large school buses. The current financial allocation for school transport is just over €110 million.

In recent years, the school transport service has been expanded to meet the transport requirements of children with special needs in both urban and rural areas. Where transport cannot be provided for a child with special needs on a regular bus service, a transport grant may be paid to the parents or guardian of the child to assist with the cost of making private transport arrangements. The level of grant paid depends on the distance from the school. For example, the maximum grant payable is €2,100 per annum if the child resides 25.1 miles or more from the school. A parent or guardian may appeal to the Department for an enhanced grant which is based on a rate per mile. The current rate per mile is 63.5 cent. A feature of the school transport scheme for children with special needs is the employment of escorts, where necessary. The cost of the escort scheme in 2003 was of the order of €4.6 million.

Until 2001, a child under ten years of age was eligible for school transport if living not less than two miles from the nearest suitable school, whereas an older child was eligible if living at least three miles from the nearest suitable school. With effect from 2001 the following improvements were implemented: all primary school children living two or more miles from their nearest national school are eligible for free transport; the distance requirement from the nearest route was reduced from three to two miles in respect of fully eligible post-primary pupils; the number of pupils required to establish and maintain a new primary school service was reduced from ten eligible pupils to not less than seven eligible pupils; the threshold for maintaining the service was reduced to four eligible pupils provided there is a minimum of six fare-paying pupils using the service; at post-primary level the combined daily travelling and waiting times were reduced from a maximum of three hours to 2.5 hours; the distance requirement for eligibility for the remote area grant in the case of primary pupils was reduced from three to two miles and this grant may now be paid to individual families instead, as was the case in the past, of being shared between families; and parents may now pay for an extension of a bus service in certain circumstances.

The post-primary transport scheme provides that for eligible and catchment boundary pupils a charge of €33 per term applies for pupils in the junior cycle and €51 per term for pupils in the senior cycle. Charges of €26 per term and €51 per term are levied for concessionary passengers at primary and post-primary levels, respectively. The maximum family contribution is €107 per term. No contribution is payable by eligible pupils where a parent or guardian holds a medical card but possession of a medical card does not remove liability for the charge for concessionary passengers.

Safety is a matter of paramount importance to the Department of Education and Science and Bus Éireann. The safety of schoolchildren is given a particularly high priority. This is reflected in Bus Éireann's safety record in the operation of school transport. To put the school transport safety record in context, school buses cover over 40 million miles a year. While even one accident is one too many, the overall accident rate is less than one accident per 1 million miles of operation. Since 1989, with the exception of one accident, no children died on board, or were struck and fatally injured by a bus operating under the school transport scheme, either owned by Bus Éireann or a contractor. The one exception was a tragic accident in 1998. The Department understands that no fault could be apportioned to the bus driver for this accident, nor was any aspect of the operation of the bus a factor in the circumstances of the accident.

All vehicles operating under the school transport scheme are required to meet the statutory regulations as laid down by the Department of Transport. Where vehicles have over eight adult seats and are more than one year old, they are required to pass the Department of Transport's annual roadworthiness test. Bus Éireann's policy of continuous fleet replacement facilitates improvement in the quality of vehicles used in the operation of the school transport scheme. Over 200 more modern buses have replaced older buses since January 2002, producing an improvement in the age profile and quality of the school bus fleet as a result.

Contractors employed by Bus Éireann to provide services under the school transport scheme must satisfy strict criteria and must hold a road passenger operator's licence where their vehicle has more than eight adult seats. Vehicles nominated for use under the scheme must be suitable for the conveyance of school children and must have complete and current documentation in respect of both buses and drivers as required by law. The vehicles have to be kept and maintained in a safe and roadworthy condition and to comply in all respects with the Road Traffic Acts.

I will now deal with the three for two arrangement on school buses. The loading or carrying capacity of school buses is determined by the relevant sections of the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations. Under existing public services vehicle regulations, the licensed carrying capacity of all vehicles engaged in the school transport scheme is based on a ratio of three passengers for every two adult seats. The question of the three for two arrangement was addressed in a review of school transport some years ago. That report stated:

No one can doubt that 1:1 would be preferable to current practice, but that is not the point. The issue is whether the large increase in cost which would result from an insistence that 1:1 be used would be justified: or, in other words, whether the reduction in risk resulting from a move to 1:1 is worth paying for.

The report also stated:

Some may think that such an approach involves, "putting children's safety at risk for the sake of financial considerations". However, this is the approach taken in all aspects of life, in public policy and by individuals in their day-to-day lives. Everyone balances risk against cost and there is nothing improper about deciding the 3:2 issue in this way.

A 1:1 ratio is desirable, however, all scheduled road and rail passenger vehicles have a rated carrying capacity in excess of the number of seats. In some cases such as the DART, the ratio of passengers to seats will in fact be higher than three to two at some times of the day. Generally speaking, no pupil will spend more than a small proportion of his her journey time in circumstances where the three for two ratio is effective. This is because, given the loading sequence on any particular route, a vehicle has its full complement of passengers for only the last portion of its journey in the morning and the first portion in the evening. There is no recorded case of an accident being attributed to the three for two seating arrangement or of that arrangement exacerbating the effects of an accident.

Under existing regulations the wearing of seatbelts is not compulsory on school buses. Seat belts must be worn on buses in which they are fitted with effect from 2006. Legislation in this area is a matter for the Minister for Transport. Most users of the school transport system are satisfied with the service provided and with the decisions taken on their entitlements. Given the significant numbers of applicants for school transport it is inevitable that some will wish to appeal decisions taken. In order to increase transparency in the system and to demonstrate that appeals are treated in an equitable manner, the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, announced the establishment of an independent school transport appeals board in January 2003. Members of the board are with us today and will address the committee immediately following this presentation. Deputy de Valera has also instituted a review of the school transport scheme which is being finalised within the Department.

I hope we will be able to answer any queries that may be raised by members of the committee.

Mr. Emmet Cotter

I am deputising for the chairman of the school transport appeals board who is out of the country. The school transport appeals board was established by the Department of Education and Science and announced by the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, in January 2003. The members comprise chairman, Paul Keely, former manager of operations, Bus Éireann; secretary, Sean McConmara, former divisional inspector, Department of Education and Science; Emmet Cotter, former regional manager, Bus Éireann; Tom D'Arcy, former regional manager, Bus Éireann; and John Falvey, former transport liaison officer, County Kerry. The quorum for a valid meeting is three members.

The board operates under the following terms of reference. In order to increase transparency in the delivery of the system and to demonstrate that appeals against decisions relating to school transport provision are treated in an efficient and objective manner, an independent appeals board was established. This will enable parents or guardians to appeal a decision of the Department if they feel the terms of the school transport scheme have been improperly or inappropriately applied in their child's case. Appeals may be made only on official forms by parents or guardians. The completed forms are submitted to the manager of school transport at Bus Éireann in Dublin. The manager prepares a report on an official form and submits it with the appeal application to the Department of Education and Science. The Department prepares a report on an official form and submits the case to the school transport appeals board.

In considering these submissions the board also has access to Department files and any other relevant documentation. Only one appeal against a Department decision is allowed. The decision of the appeals board is final. The board has met six times since 17 June 2003 and has dealt with 34 appeals. In five instances the Department's decision was varied and one case was referred back. Several appeals involved more than one pupil.

We hope to be able to answer any questions the committee may ask.

I welcome the representatives of the Department and the appeals board. The Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, said last week in the Dáil that the cost of running the school transport system has doubled in the past seven years. Can the Department officials please explain that? I appreciate there has been a change in mileage but are other factors involved? While I understand everything must be assessed in financial terms I was surprised by Mr. Bracken's statement that it is necessary to ask whether it is worth paying for the reduction in risk resulting from a move to one to one seating. It is worth paying for. Children in junior infants are small and sitting three for two in a seat is possible but when the children are almost the same size as adults it is not practical. Mr. Bracken said seat belts must be worn in buses where they are fitted from 2006. Why is this only in buses where they are fitted? Are these buses to be fitted with seat belts for the three for two ratio or a one to one ratio? I doubt that manufacturers make buses with three seat belts for two seats. In that context the storage of bags and so on is also a problem. In the small buses there might be school bags, sports bags and maybe large children.

Am I right in saying there has been no national review of catchment areas since 1969? Does the review of the school transport scheme include the catchment areas? Schools will have different problems in that context. For example, the mileage is judged on the nearest school. I know two children whose nearest school is 2.8 miles from their home and the next school is 2.9 miles but the nearest school does not have a school bus service while the school that is 0.1 mile further away has a bus that passes their door yet they cannot get a bus to school. I have a difficulty with that lack of flexibility. Maybe that is a question for the school transport appeals board. Without questioning the integrity of anyone on the board it is a pity the board does not include a parent representative. The five previous occupations listed seem to come from the transport side rather than the user side.

Will Mr. Bracken elaborate on the issue of safety and the frequency of testing? What vetting is done in terms of bus drivers, other than those driving buses for children with special needs who are vetted? I heard of an incident in which a school bus was recently involved in an accident. It was not a serious accident and there was only one child left on the bus. The driver flagged down a passing car driven by a stranger to take the child home. What training do these drivers receive? The driver in that case acted with the best intentions but it was a very dangerous thing to do. What training is given to those taking up these positions and what vetting is done to ensure they are suitable?

I welcome the delegation. School transportation from the liability and safety viewpoint is alarming. I understand buses must be tested every year but does this include private buses? Are private buses carrying pupils tested to the same level as those of Bus Éireann?

Deputy Enright alluded to the three for two ratio. It is my understanding that under new legislation that will have to end in 2008. From 2006, seatbelts on buses will have to be used. Has there been any analysis of the cost of retrospectively fitting buses with seatbelts to ensure seatbelt wearing becomes mandatory? Television advertisements state that parents are responsible for ensuring children over a certain age wear a seatbelt. Do different rules apply on a school bus? Many of the buses are over 20 years old but there have only been a small number of accidents. However, the cost of one life vastly outweighs the costs of having European standard safety requirements.

I recently asked the Minister responsible about children waiting for school buses either on the school grounds or outside them. The Minister stated that the school's board of management may be held liable in the event of an accident to a pupil where the operation of a school transport service relates to a timetable, if a child is waiting at school, is being brought to school or is taken from the bus by a member of staff or school management. However, there is a dangerous vacuum where pupils are waiting for a school bus outside a school premises. If the bus is delayed for 30 minutes, there could be play-acting or bullying where a pupil is injured. Is this the responsibility of the board of management, the parent or the State? If no one knows who is responsible, can the Minister set up a legal team to clarify it? Parents are concerned that they may be held liable in such instances.

Schools are allocated extra money for escort services for special needs pupils. Through the grapevine, I have heard that some schools are not providing the escort due to fears that they may be held liable if something happens, particularly when two schools are sharing transport. Has an investigation been carried out to see if every school is spending this money properly? Is pressure being brought to bear on schools which are not using the escort service? Escort services are an essential part of transporting pupils with special needs. If there are insurance problems, they should be clarified.

I welcome the two delegations. Dealings I have had with the transport section of the Department have always been helpful even with the constraints under which it works.

Does the maximum grant of €2,100 per annum for children with special needs cover the total cost of transport provision? How many parents have to supplement that amount? How many parents appeal for supplements to the grant? What is the level of grant below the 25.1 mile threshold from the school and how is it determined?

As taxi services are used for transport, who is responsible for the vetting of various drivers? The majority of those drivers are above reproach and many build up trust and relationships with the child and family. However, there are instances where some service providers change the taxi companies involved and this can be disruptive to the families and children. What is the Department doing to assist that transition? How does the Department ensure the person who takes over can be trusted with a special needs child?

I understand the current rate under the enhanced grant is 63.5 cent per mile. How many people are availing of it and under what circumstances is it paid? How are parents informed that the enhanced grant is available and under what conditions is it paid? Are parents aware of its availability? Is a catchment boundary pupil one who is on the boundary of the catchment area? Are the catchment areas reviewed on a regular basis? How much was collected last year from pupils with regard to the €33 a term applying in the junior cycle and €51 applying to the senior cycle? Charges of €26 and €51 per term are levied for concessionary passengers at primary and post-primary levels, respectively. How many students avail of this and how much has been accrued to the Department as a result of this charge? Are places dependent on spaces being available on the bus? Possession of a medical card does not remove the liability for the charge for concessionary passengers. How many children pay as concessionary passengers, particularly with medical cards? Can the committee have the terms of reference for the finalised school transport review?

In five cases, variations were made with regard to the appeals board and departmental decisions. Can the delegation tell us, without breaking confidentiality, what kind of cases were involved and the reason for the change? The section was set up quite recently. Has the delegation any suggestion for improvement or change regarding the work done to date? How does the delegation think the transport scheme might be improved?

I welcome the delegation. The safety record of the school transport system is very impressive and considering the numbers and the mileage involved, it deserves acknowledgement. Over the years, many of the buses used were very old and possibly unsafe in some cases. The unfortunate incidents highlighted were disproportionate to the overall safety record.

Are we going to review the catchment areas? The limits established in the past under the first board bear no resemblance to present day needs. Population trends clearly indicate that people have moved towards the urban areas. Because of that, many people have in effect been denied access to the transport system, other than access by charge. Can the delegation give us a total income figure from the charges in the last two years, which would be of interest?

The catchment area I know best in that of Woodford, County Galway. On the map the limits of that area stretch across the Shannon and Lough Derg into parts of Tipperary. That needs adjustment, to say the least. Many schools stick very rigidly to the demands, and place a very difficult onus on the people who have to make decisions on change in order to protect the school numbers, their enrolment, teacher allocation and a whole series of other possible consequences. It is a very difficult and important task and should be done on a large scale, rather than tinkering with small areas. The catchment area difficulties must be looked at by the Department in conjunction with CIE, the major carriers, school authorities and management boards.

I endorse what Deputy Enright said. There is a great need for some flexibility and discretion for people on the ground trying to implement all this who are asked to meet people who very often have difficulties. I know of one instance where there is no reason for the situation to continue. In rural areas currently, because of planning laws for example, young couples are forced to live in one area. This is due to land fragmentation. The local authority might tell such a couple that it cannot build on a particular part of their land, but must build on a patch of land which might be 100 metres beyond the boundary of the catchment area of a particular national or second level school. Parents may have had a tradition of the entire family attending one national school, but because of a boundary line, some members of the family must now go to a different school. Nobody will give in. The national school management board will not give consent, while the family tries to hold to the tradition of attending the school the family members always attended. I know there are such difficulties, but there should be flexibility and discretion among the authorities, which currently does not exist, to allow such things happen.

Is it still the case that in most instances, the CEOs of the VECs serve as liaison officers, or are they a species now out of fashion? Their functions and powers are very restricted. Because of their vested interests in many cases in rural areas, the situation should be re-examined. It is natural that they should prefer to support their own school management. Some crossfire has often developed in the past between one second level school and another because of the interference of some CEOs. That should be examined. CEOs have their own commitments and responsibilities, so the job of a liaison officer should perhaps be given to some less obvious people who are not necessarily less capable of doing the job.

Deputy O'Sullivan took the Chair.

Like other speakers, I am impressed with the safety record of the school transport service. For every million miles of operation, there has been less than one accident. That says a lot for the professionalism of the bus drivers. It must be very difficult to watch the road and also keep an eye on what is going on in the bus. The safety record stands up well.

I share the concerns of other speakers regarding safety belts. The EU regulation on compulsory fitting of safety belts on buses comes into force in 2006. Michael Schumacher was on television last week talking about EU transport ministers who spoke of the importance of using passenger safety belts, yet we have children on buses without safety belts. Is there a programme for their introduction currently under way, with safety belts being installed on buses which do not currently have them? Such belts must be introduced at some stage. Deputy Enright spoke of the situation whereby only two belts are provided for every three passengers. Will sufficient belts be provided?

The school bus transport contracts are mostly with Bus Éireann. How are the contracts awarded? Is there an annual review? Is a contract put out in different areas? I am concerned about the move to break up Bus Éireann. Will there be a break-up in the school transport area and will we be cutting corners in the area of safety?

Some 8,000 children with special needs travel on the school buses. How many of them have wheelchair access? The delegation told us that over 200 modern buses have replaced older buses since January 2002. What is the average age and mileage of the buses now being used? I presume these figures are being tracked. I accept there is a move towards modernisation, but as public representatives we hear complaints of buses having broken down. How often do buses break down? People put such breakdowns down to the age profile of the buses. The older the bus, the more maintenance it is likely to need. Where escorts are used to assist in the transport of some children with special needs, have specific working guidelines been drawn up for the staff involved? Must those responsible for the buses undertake a safety course? Are there safety kits on the buses? Insurance was mentioned, and I accept that in some cases there have been increases of 35% to 100%. What kinds of packages are available to the school transport system and how comprehensive are they? What level of education and safety measures is provided for the schoolchildren? Is that taken on board as part of a package? Are there safety signs on all the buses? Are children familiarised with them? One criticism is the number of children standing on buses, which must be a headache for many of the drivers. How does the driver, particularly if he is alone, assert himself in such a situation? Does he go back to the school? Regarding access to school safety, I accept it is only for the Twenty-Six counties at present, but in the Border region and so on, is there funding for children who are travelling across? How do children access school transport in such situations?

I welcome the delegations. I have only one question, since many of the issues have been touched on. It concerns urban school transport. During the Easter break, those of us living in Dublin realised that the traffic was much less over the period. The reason was that children were not going to school. It has always been an issue that we should try to have much more school transport in the cities. I know the scheme here does not apply unless one is two miles from one's school.

I realise that a review is being finalised. I presume it is at an advanced stage and that the delegation will be able to tell us what is going on. I want to know if there is any pressure on the delegation or discussion within their section to expand the scheme in urban areas to relieve traffic pressure. That is essentially the job of the Department of Transport rather than the Department of Education and Science, but I would like to know if that is being discussed. I know it does not touch directly on the delegation's concerns. However, there is no doubt that school transport in urban areas would contribute significantly to a reduction in traffic and improve safety for those who choose to cycle or walk, thus conferring advantages.

My questions have already been asked. However, I wish to raise one or two points. Regarding what Deputy Crowe said about a timescale, I would be interested in knowing the target date for getting rid of the three for two ratio and if there is a gradual timescale for introducing seatbelts. Obviously, the EU declaration is part of that. Further to Deputy Andrews, does the delegation have any role in those "human buses" whereby schools organise for children to walk together? Probably it does not, but it seems very positive, reducing the number of cars in urban areas, as Deputy Andrews said. I do not know whether the delegation's section or another has a role in that, but it should be positively encouraged and supported in the Department.

I do not know how much time we have for answers, but I suggest we ask the school transport appeals board to respond first. If the Department does not have time to answer all the questions, perhaps it could respond in writing. Alternatively, we can return after the expected vote in the Dáil.

Mr. Bracken

We have a great deal of statistical information available which we can give. It might answer many of the questions generally if we give figures on the numbers of pupils travelling.

We will go as quickly as we can. I will take the appeals board first, if Mr. Bracken does not mind, it has only a small number of questions to answer.

Mr. Cotter

There are essentially two questions, one being whether we have any suggestions regarding good transport. I would prefer to take that first. We have had only 34 cases before us, which is a very small proportion of the total school transport scene. Our remit is very specific. We are there to see if the existing school transport scheme is implemented appropriately and properly. Our remit is not to say whether there is anything wrong with the existing scheme. We feel that would be completely outside our remit, and our board has not considered it. I am sorry I cannot be more specific than that. The subject matter varies. In the general run of things, we have had the question of grants and the rates applied, where we have varied grants. We have come across the question of extensions. We have varied, increased or brought an extension nearer to the home of a specific client. I do not want to mention names or places; I cannot do that. Catchment boundary facilities have arisen and we have extended them to the end of this school year in one case. We recommended free transport in another case, once again for a specific period, to allow the situation to be sorted out. Those are the kinds of problems that have been presented to us. In most cases, however, there has been no change.

Mr. Bracken

I will answer a few general points first, after which my colleague can supply the details. One member asked for the terms of reference of the review committee. Those include examining and identifying elements of the work that might be contracted out in full, as recommended in the report, examining and having regard to recommendations contained in previous reports on school transport, reviewing the provision of transport for children with special needs and making recommendations on the provision of the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing such transport, examining and having regard to general safety issues contained in the discussion document on safer school buses which was circulated by the vehicle standards section of the Department of Transport, and considering all other options.

Issues were raised concerning catchment boundaries and their review. As far as I am aware, there has not been a general review of the catchment boundaries, but it is among issues being considered currently, though that is more relevant to specific cases where we understand it is creating difficulties. I am not aware of any proposal at present to have a full review of catchment boundaries across the country, but where school transport issues are giving rise to that, we talk to our planning people, examining specific cases where we are aware of problems. There have been several cases around the country where catchment boundaries have been raised as a problem.

The question of vetting taxi drivers and their being well known to parents was raised. We allow parents to organise their own taxi service in some situations. However, where Bus Éireann organises it, we understand it vets the driver. I am not sure what kind of vetting. However, if it is hiring a company and there is to be a replacement driver, he or she must be nominated. We can confirm that with Bus Éireann, but that is our understanding.

Is the Garda involved?

Mr. Bracken

As far as I am aware, not at the moment. A working group was established between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Health and Children, ourselves and the Attorney General on the general issue of vetting people, particularly regarding school children. It is very close to finalising its report on that. I understand that when it is prepared it will be submitted to the Garda Commissioner, who will then submit it to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I understand it will include a vetting arrangement for school bus drivers.

Are regular school bus drivers vetted at the moment?

Mr. Bracken

Mr. Hogan has the details.

The position as I understand it regarding bus drivers is that Bus Éireann carries out informal inquiries with local inspectors who know the drivers. Independent contractors must nominate a driver to Bus Éireann. That is the extent of my information.

Mr. Bracken

I will cover the main points and Mr. Hogan can cover the statistics.

I will go through the figures. Deputies asked about expenditure. On the financial allocations, in 1997 the amount spent on school transport was €49.5 million, in 1998 it was €51.2 million, in 1999 it was €57.9 million, in 2000 it was €65 million, in 2001 it was €77 million, in 2002 it was €95.9 million, in 2003 it was €101.7 million and currently the allocation is €110.471 million.

Members asked about receipts for school transport and term charges. The receipts are approximately €6 million. In 1997, €6.018 million was collected and in 2003 the term charge amounted to €6.46 million. Those are from concessionary primary and post-primary pupils and cover catchment boundaries and so on.

The details of the numbers of pupils carried——

I have to interrupt the witnesses as a vote has been called in the Dáil. Will we take the rest of the information in writing or will the witnesses come back afterwards?

I have a quick question on the doubling of costs. Has the number of school children being carried also doubled?

The figures I have are snapshots of a particular point in time. The figure in 1996 was 159,564 pupils, including special needs pupils, while the figure now is down between 137,000 and 140,000 pupils. The numbers have fallen. Costs have gone up but there are reasons for that and the special needs area has contributed to costs. For example, the number of vehicles on the road in 1997 was 2,300; the number now, including both Bus Éireann and contractors, is approximately 2,900. Bus Éireann vehicles have decreased in number from 697 in 1997 to 619 at present.

What is the overall cost of special needs?

The special needs cost is approximately 30% of the entire budget. That is made up of 23% on travel, while the balance is made up of grants for escorts, parents who drive their children etc. That amounts to approximately €10 million by way of grants. Approximately 30% of the budget is devoted to transport and payment of grants to special needs children.

We will have to stop or we will be late for the vote. Can we get the rest of the information in writing? That is what people want. I thank Mr. Bracken and I apologise for having to stop him in mid-stream.

Mr. Bracken

Thank you for having us.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 April 2004.
Top
Share