Deputy Deenihan gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment transport facilities for children from the Knocknagoshel area of County Kerry to the Nano Nagle Special School in Lixnaw.
Adjournment Debate. - Kerry School Transport.
I thank you for allowing me to raise this matter which is very important to the parents, children, teachers and the social workers involved. There are three cases — Joan from Cloghane, Knocknagoshel, Mary from Meinleitrim, Knocknagoshel and Seán from Killacolleen, Templeglantine, County Limerick. I will deal with each case individually.
Joan is a Down's syndrome child and has been recommended to attend the Nano Nagle School for the Handicapped in Lixnaw. She was to start school in April 1988 but the Department of Education refused to sanction the extension of the bus route to her home. On 2 November 1988 her father was informed by the Department that an extension of the service to facilitate Joan from her home would involve an extra 17.1 miles per day and a considerable additional daily cost. The Department could not sustain this expenditure given the financial constraints. There is no way the O'Sullivans would be able to take Joan to the nearest pick-up point, which is five miles away. Her father goes to work early in the morning and the mother has no car, and anyway she cannot drive. The family live in a very isolated rural area. Joan is almost six years old and still not attending school.
All studies and recent reports emphasise how important the early years are for the development of the child. Joan is missing out badly and this is inhibiting the development of this child. Her parents are doing their best but nothing can make up for the stimulation Joan would receive in the company of her peers in the school setting. The parents are most discouraged and saddened that they will have to consider sending Joan into residential care. Her mother feels she will not be able to keep her at home much longer if the school problem is not sorted out. Joan is bored and frustrated and her behaviour is becoming a problem and it is obvious her progress is being held back.
The next case is Mary. She is a Down's syndrome child and has been recommended to attend the Nano Nagle school for the Handicapped in Lixnaw. She was to start school last September, but the Department of Education informed her father that an extension of the school transport service to facilitate Mary would invlove a journey of 16.7 miles extra per day at a considerable additional daily cost. The Department said they could not sanction this expenditure, given the financial restraints imposed on them. The Nelligan family have no way of taking Mary to the pick-up point, as Mr. Nelligan uses his car to go to work and leaves too early to drop Mary off. Mary is loved and accepted as part of the family. It would break their hearts if she were to be placed in residential care, which seems to be the only option that the Department of Education is offering the family. It would be detrimental to her emotional and intellectual development if this happened. The parents are adamant that they never will allow Mary to go into residential care. Surely, this child has a right to remain at home with her family and attend the nearest special school? The family find the position in regard to transport most distressing and it is unfair to place this burden on them when they already have to cope with having a handicapped child. In effect, this child is being denied her right to education.
The third case is that of Seán, from Killacolleen, Templeglantine, County Limerick. Seán is moderately mentally handicapped. He has been recommended to attend the Nano Nagle school for the Handicapped. He was due to start school in September 1988 but the Department of Education informed his father on 28 October that a re-routing of the service to facilitate Seán would involve a journey of 16.3 miles extra per day at considerable extra daily cost. The Department said they could not sanction this extra expenditure, given the financial restraints imposed on them. The parents have no way of providing transport to the nearest pick-up point as the boy's father is working and his mother does not have access to a car. She cannot drive. The parents are most distressed. Above all else, they hope to keep their handicapped child at home so that he will remain part of the family and will benefit from the home environment. The emphasis in recent years, and I do not have to point this out to the Minister, has been to keep mentally handicapped people in their local community and where possible to keep them at home rather than to institutionalise them. It seems to be a regression to former times when children like Seán have to opt for residential care due to inadequate transport facilities. This is the only option being given to these families of handicapped children.
It is well known and agreed by all experts in child psychology that there is nothing more beneficial for the fullest emotional and intellectual development of the child than to be part of a loving and caring family, yet this is being denied to these children.
I have examined the costs involved. In fact, I believe the State will save money if they provide transport for the children. The cost of putting the children into institutional care is more than double the cost of providing school transport. There would not only be a net gain for the taxpayer. It would also be of social and emotional benefit for the children and their parents. Surely this is sufficient justification to provide the children with a transport service?
The Nano Nagle school for the Handicapped will be transferred from Lixnaw to Listowel at the end of 1989. The Minister would have received deputations already from the school about this. The children will then be within the 15 mile radius and will be entitled automatically to transport to the new location. Therefore, we are really speaking about the cost of transport for the remainder of the school year and for a short period of the next term. However, by then the children will have lost out considerably, both academically and socially and their whole developmental progress will be further retarded. I appeal to the Minister on behalf of the children and their parents, teachers and social workers to reconsider the Department's decision in view of the evidence I have put before him tonight.
We all realise the financial constraints imposed on the Department. However, it would be very wrong for a nation, and indeed it would be wrong for the politicians, to discriminate against the most vulnerable sector of our society, the handicapped. I am sure that neither the Minister of State nor the Minister would like to be called insensitive. As we are now approaching the season of goodwill I appeal to the Minister of State's better judgement to provide these children with the necessary transport.
The thinking behind the various studies on handicapped children and adults would indicate that people should stay within their own communities where they are happiest. They feel more secure and the parents are happier when their handicapped children are under their observation. The children can form attachments to their parents and overall it is a far better arrangement. I wish to emphasise again that I have looked at the costs closely and I have found that there would be a substantial saving for the taxpayer if the transport service could be provided. Might I remind the Minister that these children will be entitled to transport in nine months time so why should we hold back their progress and disturb their families for the sake of providing a paltry sum to provide transport facilities.
Deputy Deenihan has made a very reasonable case and I would concur with his concern for children with special handicaps. I hope that neither the Minister, nor I nor indeed any official would ever be insensitive to the needs of such children.
My Department are aware of the three families from the Knocknagoshel area each with a child suitable for enrolment in the Nano Nagle school in Lixnaw. There is in fact a special transport service, as the Deputy has pointed out, which is paid for by my Department operating in the area from points south of Abbeyfeale, and then by way of Abbeyfeale and Listowel to Lixnaw. The daily mileage of this service is well in excess of 100 miles. The three children in question live in the general area, but off the route. The nearest child to the school lives 18½ miles from the school and five miles from the route. The next nearest child lives at a point 25 miles from the school and over four miles from the nearest route. The third lives 28 miles from the school and nearly 5½ miles from the route. In each case diversions or extension to the routes could involve an additional 16 to 17 miles a day and add considerably to the cost, but more importantly add considerably to the time the route takes. The first pick-up time as a result of any one of these diversions would be about 7.30 a.m. with a corresponding later drop-off in the evening. In fact the earliest pick-up time would be approximately 7 a.m. if all children were picked up. I am not in a position to indicate exactly the effect on the timetable if all three extensions were sanctioned, but I understand that it may be necessary to start the route prior to 7 a.m. in the morning.
Perhaps I should make some general remarks about the transport provided to pupils of special schools. The cost of transporting handicapped pupils is high — approximately £6 million per annum for about 9,000 pupils when compared with £35 million for all classes of school transport. This works out at between £3 and £4 a day to transport each handicapped child. It is of course, only right that special efforts should be made for such children. I take the point and agree with Deputy Deenihan that every effort should be made to ensure that the children can as far as possible live at home. Indeed, that effort has been made very successfully by the Department in recent years. However, at the best of times there has been a financial limit on the amount of money that could be spent on transporting handicapped children to school and the Department have no sanction to exceed that limit. The limit is generous but in general would not suffice to allow daily transport for pupils more than 15 miles' distance from the school unless there were unusually large numbers of such pupils presenting for transport and sharing the cost of the special service between them.
In the nature of things it is unusual to find large numbers of handicapped children in a limited area. They tend rather to be scattered in ones and twos over a very wide area. This example points to the kind of difficulty the Department have to contend with where people live miles apart and miles away from the route. It is very difficult to go around and pick up everybody. One of our problems is that, while we would like as far as possible to pick up people from their homes, if you were to apply the criteria proposed by Deputy Deenihan across the board that would add very considerably to the overall mileage to which we would have to extend all the routes at present. We have associations involved with the handicapped asking us all the time to extend routes, to provide new routes and so on and in the Department we are doing our best to try to meet the needs of those people; but obviously there is a limit to what one can do.
However, I take the points the Deputy has made this evening and I am prepared to look again at this case. The question of providing a grant to the parents involved in order to help them with the cost of getting to the pick-up points can be addressed and we will see if we can do anything in that respect; but the time factor is still a problem. An extra 16 or 17 miles a day in three different directions would undoubtedly mean a very long time from when the children would leave home in the morning until they would get back in the afternoon.
I assure the House, and Deputy Deenihan particularly, that we will have another look at this case and see what improvements, if any, we can bring about. My hope would be to try to provide the best service possible taking into account all the constraints upon us. Indeed, we want to do our best for all mentally and physically handicapped children, especially in the line of transport, because we know hardships are being caused. Indeed, hardships are being caused in the city of Dublin. In many areas of the city bus services are not adequate and people want a service for a deaf child or whatever where the child can be picked up, put on a bus and left off at the school. I would appreciate the Deputy's patience in understanding that is very difficult to do. It is much easier to pick up 40 kids in one area and bring them to school. It is very difficult when you are trying to pick up ten kids in ten different areas from both the time and cost factors because often it means more than one bus if there is a route that is too long. We are conscious of the difficulty. Certainly we would not wish to be insensitive, and I will take this case and examine it carefully with a view to improving it.
I thank the Minister for his reply and for the sensitive way he has treated the subject.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 8 December 1988.