Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 May 2000

Vol. 520 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - School Transport.

Mr. U. Burke

I want the Minister to resolve this issue without bias by providing Seamount College, Kinvara, with the same facilities as Gort community school, namely a single catchment area for both schools. This was on offer as far back as 1998 but with the proviso that both schools' boards of management must approve it. Seamount College's board of management approved the offer immediately. We all know that school transport schemes operated by the Department of Education and Science provide transport to students according to a precise set of rules which are applied nation-wide. These rules are applied strictly throughout the country and like any hard and fast rules they sometimes result in very difficult cases. Within the Seamount College catchment area there have always been students who fell foul of this rule. In addition, there are several students who, despite qualifying for school transport, were not accommodated because there was no bus in the area. A campaign on their behalf had been waged for many years by Seamount College, but to no avail. In recent years in the Seamount College catchment area, a significant number of students were provided with full transport to Gort, in clear violation of the transport rules. It is noteworthy that all the human errors that these were accredited to were to the disadvantage of Seamount College, while the full rigour of the rules continued to be applied to Seamount students.

In support of these students, the college authorities simply requested an even application of the rules but this has not happened. After much pressure, the transport authorities eventually withdrew the Gort ticket they had issued, supposedly, in error, unfortunately creating inconvenience for the parents and students concerned. Nevertheless, Seamount was painted as the villain in the whole process with the view that the college was withholding permission for these students to travel. The board of management could not sign the document, especially since the basic entitlements – let alone the equivalent concessions – were not being made available to their own students. Eventually, the Minister intervened and issued temporary tickets to the Gort students. This action completely overruled all existing rules. That is the current situation and the Minister must take responsibility for it.

Seamount has no wish to inconvenience any parents or students travelling to Gort. It has a duty to protect its own students and its own school. The Minister cannot allow a veto to exist in favour of one school which has caused serious consequences in the other one, namely Seamount College. A group of parents want to have their daughters educated in Seamount College, which they are entitled to do, and they must be provided with inward transport to Kinvara, just as boys and girls from the Gort catchment area are allowed outward transport to Gort. The Minister should act decisively to prevent chaos in another new school year. He should not continue to be partisan in this delicate situation. The Minister has caused much of it in the past by his biased bungling of the situation to date. There is no reason both schools cannot co-exist, providing an excellent education as they have done over the years. The 19 girl students wishing to be educated in Seamount College must be provided with school transport inwards to Kinvara, as is currently available outwards for Gort students.

This problem has been on the Minister's desk for far too long. Why is he delaying? Can he not implement or direct a decision to be made whereby all involved must work to it without being selective, to the advantage of one side. The Minister for Education and Science replied recently to Deputy Richard Bruton saying that the Department was currently examining the matter. An article in the Irish Independent of 18 February stated that:

Mr. O'Dea has also set up a departmental committee to look at one of the more substantial reforms proposed by an Oireachtas committee, that is a review of the catchment areas where the post primary scheme is based. The committee said a review of the area boundaries was overdue because of changes in population distribution and educational practice.

I hope the Minister will have good news for the parents of Kinvara.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science (Mr. O'Dea)

I want to correct one deliberate mis-statement on the part of Deputy Ulick Burke. I did not act in gross violation of any rules. I changed the rules as I am entitled to do, and I stand over my decision to do so in this case.

Seamount college is located in the Kinvara catchment area. The college caters for girls only. Gort is an adjoining catchment area with one school, Gort community school, which is co-educational. The original position was that for transport purposes, boys living in the Kinvara catchment area were eligible for transport to Gort community school as there was no post primary school provision for boys in the Kinvara centre. Girls were considered ineligible for full transport provision to Gort as they could be catered for in Seamount college. Transport was not provided for girls from the Gort catchment area who wished to attend school in Kinvara.

In 1998 a number of families residing in the Kinvara catchment area asked that the terms of the school transport scheme applicable to girls in that catchment area who attend post-primary school in Gort, be re-examined. At the time such pupils were given catchment boundary facilities only to Gort, provided they were basically eligible for transport in the first instance, i.e. where they reside at least three miles from Seamount college. They were expected to make their own travel arrangements to meet the bus at the nearest pick-up point in the Gort catchment area.

The Parents' complaint was that while the bus collected boys at or near their homes, their sisters had to travel to the catchment boundary to get on the same bus – an absolutely ludicrous situation.

Mr. U. Burke

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Dea

In re-examining the relevant terms of the scheme, a number of issues had to be addressed. The Department is responsible for ensuring that requests for school transport do not unreasonably threaten the viability of existing schools, to which parents, teachers and the State – through taxpayers – have already committed resources. However, the Department was also required to consider the practical difficulties experienced by the families in question, arising from the rigid application of the scheme in their area.

It was considered that in the unusual circumstances where members of the same household could be appropriate to separate catchment areas on the basis of their gender, pupils who would not ordinarily qualify for transport to another catchment area may be allowed to board the bus at the same point as those with a full transport entitlement, provided no extra State cost is involved.

This revision, whereby girls from Kinvara were allowed to board the school bus for Gort, was put in place in September 1998. The board of management of Seamount secondary school were unhappy with the arrangement whereby there was no reciprocal arrangement to transport girls from the Gort catchment area to Seamount. The Department's position was that in the case of the girls from Seamount to Gort, no additional costs arose as a bus route already existed for boys. The reverse situation did not apply, and to carry girls from Gort to Seamount would require a new bus service for pupils who could be accommodated in Gort and would be a deliberate infringement of the catchment boundaries in that area.

In an effort to resolve the problem in so far as was possible, the management authorities of the Seamount and Gort schools were subsequently asked to reconsider the implications of having one catchment area to include post-primary schools in Kinvara and Gort. This would allow girls to enrol in either school and once they were three miles from the school which they attended, they would be eligible for school transport. It was hoped that this would resolve the transport problem for girls who wish to attend either centre under the school transport scheme. Both school managements would have to agree this strategy. That is the normal procedure in a case where a re-drawing or removal of catchment boundaries is proposed.

The response to the proposal was that while the Seamount school management expressed support, the management of Gort community school was opposed. In the circumstances, the proposal was not proceeded with and it is my understanding that the matter remains unchanged, and that the opposition which Gort has expressed remains.