John Gormley
Ceist:6 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will confirm that, despite the recent report on the school transport scheme, it will remain the policy that charges should not be made for this service. [3565/98]
Other Questions. - School Transport.
Liz McManus
Ceist:14 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Education and Science the plans, if any, he has to alter the scheme of charges for school transport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3500/98]
Brian O'Shea
Ceist:94 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will introduce a charge for student school transport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3557/98]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 6, 14 and 94 together.
The school transport review committee was set up by my predecessor in January 1996. The committee undertook a comprehensive study of the entire school transport system. Its report was received by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in September 1997 and is currently being evaluated in the Department. The report was published on 21 January 1998 and has been circulated to various interests.
The recommendations contained in the report, including those concerning the introduction of new fees and increasing current transport charges, do not necessarily reflect Government policy. I welcome the publication of the report, which will afford an opportunity for extensive debate on its contents. I assure Deputies that I will give serious consideration to and reflect on the product of this debate before making final decisions on any future changes to the school transport system.
The Minister is still looking at the report but he has not directly stated whether current policy will remain in place, as most people on this side of the House believe it should. Public transport should be regarded as a social service but is that how the Minister sees it? We have seen the demise of rural post offices and Garda stations. Will this be another blow to rural dwellers? As a result of this measure, will we see increased traffic on our roads? This is another aspect of the issue which is causing great disquiet. The school transport service has offered many people a way of getting to and from school but this report seems to spell its demise. The system has existed since 1967. Does the Minister not think the report is opening the way to rolling back an extremely good measure?
I regard the introduction of the school transport system as probably the most radical and revolutionary move taken by any Minister for Education. The late Donogh O'Malley took this step to enable children to get to school. It fundamentally opened access to education for children throughout Ireland and we in Fianna Fáil are extremely proud of this decision.
All Deputies have problems with the school transport system, as is evidenced by the number of parliamentary questions I receive on individual cases, but we forget that by and large it has been a successful scheme in that it has achieved its fundamental purpose. People have problems with it but it has fundamentally been a success. Modern developments will necessitate a review, however.
The problem is that the outgoing Administration produced the report which we then published. My difficulty in being categoric in what I say is that I do not like to rubbish a particular group's deliberations. There is value in teasing out those deliberations with all the partners in education. However, the policy is as it is now and not as it is in the report. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, has disseminated the report among the partners and is waiting for feedback and to have discussions with them.
To be frank, I am surprised by the scale of the proposals and I have great difficulty with all of them. It is extraordinary to propose that medical card holders should have to pay for the service. However, the report has been published and people will have to come back to us on it.
Will the Minister agree the review group exceeded its brief by applying itself to the issue of fees and that only the issues in the brief should be up for discussion now? On that basis, the Minister should remove this proposal from the discussion and put us all at ease.
It is an awful pity the Deputy did not do that himself — this is one he left over for us.
Is what I said not true?
I take the Deputy's point that when the school transport review was launched in January 1996 its terms of reference were to examine the effects of declining enrolments on the operation of the school transport scheme — which could mean anything — to address any anomalies which may come to light, to consider the possibility or advisability of revising catchment areas if necessary and to review the arrangements for pupils in special, multidenominational and all-Irish schools. The committee was also expected to address a number of other issues which are a source of concern to parents and school authorities. Those are broad terms of reference which one could argue, if one so wanted, included all relevant matters.
This is the third review of the school transport system. We need to involve the partners in a basic discussion about the service. It is a necessary service but we should not underestimate its cost to public funds. There are also issues concerning the condition and modernisation of the fleet, the recommended reduction of the qualifying distance from the nearest school from three to two miles and so on. The problem with removing one part of the report is that its authors seem to say it has to be all or nothing. In other words, they are saying the charges are fundamentally connected to their other proposals.
However, I take the Deputy's point that there seems to be a consensus in the House not to proceed with the conclusions of the report. We will take on board what the partners have to say and take it from there.
Is the Minister prepared, in the interests of clarity, to say here and now that he is ruling out the charge of £30 per medical card holder and £90 for everyone else which was recommended in the report?
We have allowed the report to be discussed among the partners. I do not want to pre-empt what may emerge from that discussion. I think that is reasonable when a report has just been published. I made the point that the previous Government appointed the committee, undertook the report and drew up the terms of reference. It was stalled for a long time and has now been published.
We made no provision in the 1998 Estimates for increases of that sort. The present policy remains in place and is not diminished in any way. This report is now being discussed by all the interested bodies and we will await the outcome of those discussions. It is having no impact, as of now, on policy decisions taken by me or the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, in this area. It is possible that we might come up with completely different ideas and proposals for the school transport system.
But no charges.
Will the Minister agree the current fleet of school buses is completely dilapidated and it is questionable whether many of them should still be on the road? Will he give a commitment to an increased allocation in funding to bring some of these buses up to standard? There are situations where three post primary students have to share two seats. Serious questions must be asked about the safety standards on these buses. Has the Minister been in contact with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in regard to legislation on school transport? The problem seems to be there is no legislation to bring buses up to the proper standard.
I do not think we need legislation for that. We need resources.
Private operators.
That is why the issue has been lying around for many years and why no effort was made by the previous Government to improve the service or make any money available over the past four years, except to initiate a review. I am conscious of the issue and we are deliberating the matter in the context of the report which has been published.
The report was undertaken by many people whose bona fides I do not question in terms of their ability to have a root and branch look at the system, which they have done. We owe it to the people who voluntarily put a great deal of time and effort into producing the report to allow it to be discussed properly by all the partners in order to develop policy. That is a reasonable position. Meanwhile, the policy continues as it is, in that there is no impact on charges. The degree to which we can improve the service is limited by resources.
I am disappointed that the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, who is responsible for adult literacy and school transport, which has been the dominant issue today, is not here. Will the Minister assure me that Deputy O'Dea, who is frequently liable to speak personally on matters of Government policy, subscribes to the point of view put forward by the Minister that there will not be charges? He is apt to make announcements on a Monday morning which take the country by surprise.
It is reported in today's newspaper that the Ombudsman found serious defects in the way a child with a disability was treated. Does this indicate to the Minister there will have to be significant changes in the approach to school transport to ensure the rights of such children are properly provided for?
I will certainly ensure that the recommendations of the Ombudsman which arise out of that case will be implemented. That case arose in September 1994 and continued until 1996. The Department then improved the situation after that length of time. We must be absolutely fair to children with special needs in terms of the operation of the school transport scheme. I have already given a clear commitment, in response to the Ombudsman's report, to the implementation of its recommendations.
Beyond that individual child, I trust.
Yes.
I want to establish definitively where the Minister stands on this issue. He has told us today he wants to be frank with us and that the report goes too far in his view. He has also said it is not possible to remove part of the report in that we must take it all or nothing.
That is what the authors said.
Does the Minister accept the point——
I just pointed out——
Deputy Gormley must be allowed to complete his question.
Is the Minister prepared to reject the report in total? Can he say definitely there will be no charges as far as he is concerned?
As I said, I have a difficulty in preempting deliberations which are now taking place on the report. In fairness to those who compiled it and all the partners involved, I am prepared to allow a discussion so that people can deliberate on all aspects of the report. While that is taking place, there will be no impact on the school transport scheme in terms of costs, as per the recommendations of the report. I will not reject or accept anything out of hand until the process in which we have engaged has taken its course. That is reasonable given that people have put much time and effort into it, otherwise the process whereby we enlist people to help and assist a range of bodies and Departments will be undermined. People will ask why they should go on a committee if, as soon as a report is published, it is arbitrarily rubbished by the Minister and relegated to the shelf. That could happen and would undermine the process.
I argue that if a committee addresses an issue which it is not asked to address, we have no obligation in that regard. Is my interpretation of what the Minister said correct in that there will be no increase or new fees in the present school year? Has he given a commitment for the coming school year?
From time to time there are normal incremental increases in relation to second level. In terms of the fundamental recommendations, we have given a commitment that they will not be implemented in the coming year. We have no plans to introduce the new types of charges which have been proposed. The Deputy wants me to reject the entire report out of hand. I am allowing the deliberation to take place on the report. People have no need to fear any fundamental alteration of the scheme.
I am asking the Minister to reject that which the committee was not asked to address.
I would dispute that it was not asked to address that. The terms of reference were sufficiently broad for the committee to investigate everything. The committee had to work within certain financial constraints. It proposed improvements in a range of areas and how to finance them. The present Government was not responsible for setting up the committee. We should at least discuss the report, which covers other aspects in addition to cost, to see why the committee came to these conclusions. We should engage in some process. People should not overexercise themselves on the question of cost which is a nice political issue which they want to drum up, although on the basis of a report commissioned by a previous Government. People are trying to nail the present Government on whether the proposals will be implemented. There is a process in place in which we will engage. Obviously, we will have to come back to the House if anything is to happen.
I carefully read the Minister's lips and I distinctly saw them say "no charges".
The Deputy is supposed to ask a question and not to interpret what was said by the Minister.
I am asking a question but we must read between the lines. The signals are very important in this regard. The Minister might give some attention to parents and pupils who have to pay for school transport, particularly those within a catchment area or those who, because of choice of school, especially in urban areas, must pay for transport. Given the impact which school car journeys have on general traffic congestion, particularly in major urban areas, will the Minister discuss with his colleagues who have responsibility for transport and the environment the possibility of introducing a comprehensive school transport scheme in urban areas on a wider basis? This would benefit children and reduce the amount of traffic congestion at peak hours in the morning.
I will consider that and consult with my colleagues, the Minister for Public Enterprise and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
Given that many school buses are overcrowded and unsupervised, does the Minister take responsibility for bullying or the suffering children go through as a result? Does he have advice for parents, families or teachers who must put up with this growing problem, particularly in light of our earlier discussion on suicide?
Comprehensive guidelines and advice are issued by the Department on bullying and discipline. They apply not only to the school but the school environment generally and travel to and from school. A number of agencies are responsible. I do not accept responsibility for every act of bullying or intimidation which takes place. That would be ridiculous.
Who is responsible when bullying occurs on school buses?