Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 20 and 30 together.

Changes to aspects of the school transport service were announced in the 2011 budget by the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government and derive from recommendations in the 2010 Value for Money Review of the scheme. The wider context is that the budget for school transport increased from some €50 million to nearly €180 million between 1997 and this year. This massive increase, while heavily influenced by factors such as safety and the transport provision for children with special educational needs, is significantly greater than the inflation rate or the rate of increase in the overall education budget during the same period.

There is a requirement under the four year recovery plan to deliver savings of €17 million on school transport and these measures are a necessary part of achieving it. Given the circumstances of the country, the stark reality is that there is simply no scope for reversing these measures. With regard to the three specific aspects of the changes raised by the Deputy, I would like to make the following points. The Value For Money review identified that in 2008 the unit cost per primary pupil for the provision of school transport was more than €1,000 per annum. The charge of €50, representing as it does some 5% recoupment of this cost, must be seen in context. It is also important to stress that eligible pupils holding medical cards will be exempt from paying the charge and that the charge is capped at a maximum of €110 per family with eligible primary pupils only.

The increase from seven to ten in the number of eligible pupils residing in a distinct locality and who are required to establish or retain a school transport service broadly represents a reversal back to 2002 levels. Again, it is important to stress that families of eligible pupils for whom there is no school transport service available may apply for a grant towards the cost of making private transport arrangements.

I assume the Deputy's final question relates to the decision to apply the distance eligibility requirement to all pupils travelling under the primary transport scheme, including those pupils who have previously availed of free transport under the closed-central schools rule. This means that only primary pupils who reside 3.2 km or more from the nearest school will be eligible for transport. In a time of such serious economic difficulties, I am sure the Deputy will accept it is not unreasonable to restrict transport eligibility to those living more than two miles from their school. There is no change in the position whereby ineligible pupils may apply for concessionary transport in accordance with the terms of that scheme.

See this speech in context