Vol. 248 No. 5
asked the Minister for Education the number of children attending schools in Dublin city and county who reside more than three miles from their school and who travel to and from school by public transport for which their parents have to pay, and who were deprived of the benefit of the transport subsidy which was withdrawn by his Department on 1st May last.
33.
asked the Minister for Education under what sub-head in the estimate of the Office of the Minister for Education the amount of the subsidy for school transport appeared since the subsidy was first granted; when it was decided to withdraw the subsidy with effect from 1st May, 1970; and when the decision was first publicly announced.
34.
asked the Minister for Education if he will state with reference to his reply of 30th June last if it is open to any particular family who suffer hardship in paying for the cost of transporting children to and from school by scheduled public transport services to obtain from his Department financial assistance towards meeting such costs; and, if so, if he will outline the steps to be taken by any such family to obtain such assistance.
35.
asked the Minister for Education the authority for the payment of the subsidy towards the cost of transporting children to and from school which was withdrawn with effect from 1st May last; how the subsidy was calculated; what it would cost his Department per annum if that particular subsidy were continued in operation; if he has power to continue the subsidy; and, if he has not such power, if he will take steps to obtain it.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 32 to 35 together.
Prior to April, 1969, the provision for school transport appeared under subhead C.3 of Vote No. 28 for primary education and subhead M of Vote 29 for post primary education. As from April, 1969, the complete cost of school transport has been provided for under subhead D.3 of Vote No. 27 for the Office of the Minister for Education.
The subsidy was calculated on the basis of the revenue lost to CIE because schoolchildren's fares were held at the level obtaining prior to the general fares increase of December, 1968.
CIE were informed on 24th April, 1970, that the subsidy would be discontinued as from 1st May, 1970, and found it necessary to make up the loss of revenue in the general fares increase announced on 17th June, 1970.
The information sought by the Deputy in Question No. 33 is not available nor does any question of compiling it arise. The reason for this is the fact that the general scheme of free transport relates only to pupils who reside more than three miles from the nearest suitable school. The fact that parents may elect to send their children to a school more than three miles distance from their homes is a matter for the parents. It does not carry with it any claim or any entitlement to financial assistance from the State where a suitable school is available within three miles.
The annual cost of the subsidy was £135,930 and for the reasons explained in my reply of 30th June, 1970, I do not propose to reintroduce the subsidy.
Do I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply that the figure in this year's Estimate for the Department of Education, which is already passed, includes a figure for the transport which was previously provided in Dublin on a subsidised basis?
In so far as it was possible to ascertain what the cost of this would be, I did take account of the fares operating up to that time. However, as I explained to the Deputy the last day, the increased costs of CIE would be in excess of the figure I have mentioned now. I should also tell the Deputy that it has always been held by CIE—this is not a matter that concerns me—that even at the present subsidised rate of one-half, they are losing substantially on the rates being applied for children. The Estimate to which the Deputy referred has taken account of the cost but that was the total cost for the country as a whole.
But the present Estimate which came before this House, which was passed by this House without any indication from the Minister of his intention to withdraw the £135,000, in fact, included the £135,000 and, therefore, it is not necessary to have legislation to continue the subsidy which was previously given.
Of course, it is. The Deputy will appreciate that the total amount is £3 million and this applies on the basis of distance and age qualification not just to Dublin but to the whole country. The same criteria apply all over.
They do not apply in Dublin.
To effect an increase on that would, of course, involve legislation, and that total sum is being expended.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary now suggesting that it is possible for all children in Dublin to attend a school within three miles of their home? Is that what the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting, because that is the assumption on which £135,000 is being taken out of the pockets of parents in Dublin whose children are obliged to travel three miles or more to go to school because they cannot get into schools within the three-mile radius?
It is no such thing, as the Deputy well knows. In so far as it can be ascertained over 80 per cent of the children who benefited from this subsidy attended schools which were not the nearest school which it is the responsibility of the Department to provide under the scheme. Therefore, the Deputy had better check his facts in that regard.
You have robbed the poor of Dublin——
The Deputy may not make a speech.
——in order to support the people with swanky cars, who have ample money and who are now being nursed at the expense of the poor of Dublin.
In the earlier part of this speech the Parliamentary Secretary referred to subhead M of the Vote for post primary education. There is no such Vote.
That is a separate matter.
Would the Minister agree that the supplementary questions indicate that while children in other parts of Ireland are obliged to attend the nearest school to them and get transport if that school is more than three miles away, Deputy R. Ryan would prefer the Dublin children to be in a more privileged position?
No. The Deputy wants equality, and the mischievous Deputy ought to go back to school to learn the meaning of plain language.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me with reasonable precision to what he was referring in the earlier part of his answer when he mentioned subhead M of the Vote for post primary education?
The Parliamentary Secretary said, if the Deputy was listening——
I was listening.
I said: "Prior to April, 1969, the provision for school transport appeared under subhead C.3 of Vote No. 28 for primary education and subhead M of Vote 29 for post primary education." I then went on to say: "As from April, 1969, the complete cost of school transport has been provided for under subhead D.3 of Vote No.27...".
The point is——
We cannot debate the question. Has the Deputy a question to put?
There is no such thing as the Vote for post primary education.
That is a separate matter. Question No.36.
I want to raise this matter on the Adjournment having regard to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary——
The Deputy may say what he wants on the Adjournment if the question is allowed by the Chair. He may not make a speech on the matter now. The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
I am drawing attention to the fact——
Would the Deputy resume his seat?
——that no extra estimate is required to continue this subsidy.
Chair, chair.
I have called Question No. 36.
Your ruling last week was that I could not raise it on the Adjournment.
Would the Deputy resume his seat?
But I shall raise this on the Adjournment.
The Deputy has no knowledge whether it will be allowed on the Adjournment or not.
It is possible for you to rule it out of order as you did last week, and that was disorderly.
The Deputy is the most disorderly Deputy in the front bench. He should behave himself.
The chair should behave himself, too, out of the House and in it, and he did not do that last week.
