School Transport Scheme

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 27 November 2013

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Questions (61)

John O'Mahony

Question:

61. Deputy John O'Mahony asked the Minister for Education and Skills if the EU Commission made a mistake when it wrote on OJEU on 15.9.2007 as part of State Aid Ireland Investigation 31/07 that Bus Éireann operated the school transport services on a cost recovery basis when the value for money review March 2011 did not say that it was on a cost recovery basis and this expression has been removed from the annual report of Bus Éireann and in view of the fact that the Irish authorities have no independent impartial monitoring of actual costs incurred by Bus Éireann or its profits, if any, relating to the school transport scheme since 1975; if he will make a material statement on the implications for his Department and separately for Bus Éireann if it made a profit since 1975; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50910/13]

Oral answers (1 contributions)

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills

I would like to preface this reply by noting that it is not for the Minister for Education and Skills to speak on behalf of the EU Commission. That said, the agreed document of 1975 provides the basis for payment to Bus Éireann in respect of the arrangements between my Department and Bus Éireann under which the school transport scheme operates. To describe the details contained in this document as providing for payment on a cost recovery basis is a fair and reasonable depiction of the position.

The arrangements between my Department and Bus Éireann as they relate to school transport were the subject of extensive consideration by the High Court in the context of the recent proceedings. The outcome of these proceedings, which found decisively in favour of the Department's position, is available on the Courts Service Website. These proceedings provided full opportunity for all parties to advance the arguments and counter arguments in relation to all aspects of these arrangements including matters such as "cost recovery" and "profit". Any issues or implications in relation to these matters will be fully dealt with by the Department in the context of the Supreme Court Appeal. I refer the Deputy to my earlier reply of 6th November, in which I set out the wider context to the conduct of this case.