I have five minutes to talk about what I believe to be the greatest scandal in our education system; it is in the Cherry Orchard area the last corporation estate built before the Minister for the Environment stopped all house building in Dublin. It was about three-fifths built at the time and it was intended that, when completed, there would be a church, schools and shops in the estate. Since it was not completed all it has is a church — no shops and no school. The Minister for Education decided that the children in the area would have ample scope with places available in other schools in the surrounding areas. The Minister saved millions of pounds — I suppose about £5 million or £6 million — by not building that school for these children in Cherry Orchard. She decided the children should bus to other schools but did not provide the money for this.
Adjournment Debate. - Cherry Orchard (Dublin) School Transport.
Is the Deputy talking about me?
I am talking about the Minister for Education who has responsibility for schooling for the children of Cherry Orchard. She provided no school for them and decided that there were places available in other schools, that they should be bussed to other schools and that they would get no money for this because they are less than three miles away. This rule was made for rural areas where schools are three miles away, and they get paid. The result is that parents in this area, many of whom are on social welfare benefits, have to move 1,200 children to six different schools. Some families are broken up into different schools, some one mile and some two and a half miles away. Most of them are bussed but many cannot afford this and have to walk. The cost per child at present is £1.75 to £3.50 per week, some families with three children are paying up to £10 per week. In one or two cases there are more than three school going children and it is impossible for families in their circumstances to pay £10 a week. Many of them find it difficult enough to provide a breakfast for their children before they go to school.
It is estimated that the cost of this school transport would be £2,000 per week and over the past five yearse these people have spent over £250,000 because the Minister for Education would not provide them with a school of their own for 1,200 children. They are keeping six other schools viable, schools which would have closed down but for the fact that the people of Cherry Orchard are forced to make them viable by sending their children to schools all over the place, and having to pay for it as well. Under the Constitution the Minister is supposed to provide free primary education. These families are unable to provide the money for the buses for their children.
The position has been reached where today two of the O'Reilly coaches have refused to carry 400 children to the Dominican Convent or the De La Salle school unless their parents pay an extra 25p per week per child, increasing the amount from £2.50 to £2.75 per week per child. The parents have been told that their children will not be transported to school on Monday unless they pay this increase.
This is a scandal. The Programme for Economic and Social Progress stated that particular attention would be paid to children suffering from educational or social disadvantage, etc. This is one of the greatest areas of social disadvantage in Dublin. The people there are crying out for education, extra gardai and community facilities. Yet the Minister is putting an extra burden on the people who live in the area concerned a burden which the parents of the pupils in the other six schools do not have to suffer. I am asking the Minister to provide free transport for these children or provide a school in the Cherry Orchard area for those 1,200 children, which is what should have been done at the start. I ask the Minister to help the children in this area by paying for their school transport immediately.
First I want to thank Deputy Mac Giolla for raising this issue. I want to put the record straight. The Deputy used the rather clever ruse of referring to "she" several times in regard to the provision of a certain school in a particular area. I want to make it quite clear that I was not the Minister involved.
You have been the Minister since 1987.
Will the Deputy listen to what I have to say?
The Minister has responsibility in this area.
The Deputy used a well known trick by referring to "she".
The Minister happens to be a woman.
Will the Deputy please let me finish?
You did not let me finish.
Hold your whist boy——
Surely a Minister has to take responsibility——
Gabh mo leithscéil——
The Deputy used——
Will the Minister please bear with me? I ask the Minister and Deputy Mac Giolla to cease this cat calling across at each other.
It is the first time I have heard a Minister refusing to accept responsibility.
The Minister will address the Chair agus caithfidh Deputy Mac Giolla fanacht ciúin. Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh tú é sin.
I wish to put the record straight in regard to the ruse used by Deputy Mac Giolla. He referred to "she", pointed at me and said I had not provided the school. That is not what happened. It was another Minister for Education of the female gender who was involved.
Secondly, on 13 March the Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Frank Fahey, who has responsibility for school transport met a deputation from the area and listened to their case. That deputation were to provide more information to the Minister. I have the records of the meeting which ended on the understanding that further information would be submitted to the Minister of State's office. However, this information has not yet been submitted. Thirdly, as the Minister of State firmly said at that meeting the case will be further studied on the production of that information.
I want to clear up another point. There are some well run schools in that area with excellently qualified teachers who are dedicated and caring.
I am not denying that.
Some children pass by those schools on their way to other schools. School transport is provided to enable children to attend the schools nearest to their homes. That is the position which obtained throughout this jurisdiction.
I am talking about 1,200 pupils——
That is the way the scheme has operated since it was introduced in 1967 on a nationwide basis. I want to place those facts on the record.
On the submission of additional information by the deputation I will ask the Minister of State to carry out a further review. I accept the urgency of the problem but it must be considered in the context of the overall operation of the nationwide school transport scheme and the genuine social need to have children attend their local schools.
These children are socially disadvantaged but the Minister is doing nothing for them.
Please allow us to proceed on a note of tranquility, Deputy.
The Minister will not take responsibility for her junior Minister.