Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

It appears to be a strange rule. This is being applied to buses which are part of the school transport system, whether they are privately owned or State-owned. It appears to be the function of the bus rather than who is footing the bill that is the critical issue. After all, they are both carrying schoolchildren. Even though these children may not be part of the school transport system, they are being transported to school and it is not their fault they are not part of the school transport system. It was ironic that on the night before the accident, the parents resolved at a board meeting yet again to request that the children would be admitted into the school transport system.

Taking that a step further, if there is a problem about seeking the retro-fitting of seat belts, surely there cannot be a problem about making it a requirement that children transported in buses should have a seat. That is a basic safety requirement to which the EU could not have any objection. We could move towards that immediately. I know it is not the ultimate protection and gives no guarantee of protection, but it is much better than having children standing loose in buses.

My second question relates to the different standards of tests which apply to publicly and privately owned buses, or private hire buses to distinguish them from those hired by CIE, whether by Bus Átha Cliath or Bus Éireann. I understand CIE does most of its own testing and that despite there being manuals and so on available to designate exactly what should be tested, the testing system does not seem to be nearly as onerous as the NCT, for example, to which all private cars are subjected and which seems to allow no margin for error. However, we have seen in the test for buses that there is margin for error. The bus involved in the accident in Meath passed its test despite the air brakes not being turned on.

The Minister said the report on the Meath accident was not published because of the prosecution requirement. Prosecutions are important but much more important in terms of what emerges from reports should be the lessons to be learned. Are we to learn no lessons until prosecutions take place and court cases are finished, which could take years? Leaving aside the apportioning of blame, if we had some sort of report, would it not be possible that we would have generated a debate of some sort on the roadworthiness test applied to these buses? We are talking of a 17 year old bus and while I do not want to draw conclusions about the back axle falling off, a 17 year old bus is an old one.

Arising from the problem that the bus was not licensed or that it was not registered on the operator's licence, from what I read in the newspapers this bus was newly bought by the owner, possibly during the summer, and it passed its roadworthiness test before September. Where did the bus come from? There is much anecdotal information that many buses and cars are being imported from other countries because they failed the tests there. I do not know if this is the case regarding the bus we are speaking of but it is an issue we need to examine if such buses are to be used for private hire.

Does the Minister agree that this second accident highlights again how ludicrous is the rule about the school transport system which precludes parents from having choice of school, even among their immediate localities, and forces them into a situation where they must hire private buses? Will the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, say if any of the children being carried on the bus involved in yesterday's accident were former concessionary pupils who lost places on the official school transport system last September?

See this speech in context