Síle de Valera (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I am pleased the Seanad has decided to discuss school transport this afternoon. I welcome the opportunity to outline the range of measures my Department has put in place in recent times to improve the safety, the range and the quality of school transport services.

I will first provide Members of the House an outline of the extent of the school transport service. It is a significant operation, managed by Bus Éireann on my Department's behalf and covering over 46 million miles annually. Over 135,000 children, including more than 8,000 children with special needs, are transported in over 3,300 vehicles on a daily basis to primary and post-primary schools throughout the country. In addition to the 135,000 children carried, Bus Éireann also issues over 9,000 tickets to schoolchildren for travel on public and privately licensed scheduled local and national bus and public rail services.

Government investment in the scheme has increased very significantly over the years. In 1997, expenditure stood at €49.6 million, while this year's allocation is €152 million. This investment has been targeted toward the development of new services, improvements in the quality of services and extensions and alterations to existing services, mainly relating to special needs. In 2001, several improvements were made to the school transport services. The number of eligible pupils required to establish and maintain a new primary school service was reduced from ten to not less than seven. The threshold for maintaining a post-primary service was reduced to four eligible pupils, provided there was a minimum of six fare-paying pupils using the service. At post-primary level, the combined daily travelling and waiting times were reduced from a maximum of three hours to 2.5 hours. In addition, the distance requirement for remote area grants for primary pupils was reduced from 4.8 km, or three miles, to 3.2 km, or two miles, and the distance requirement from the nearest route was reduced from 4.8 km to 3.2 km in respect of fully eligible post-primary pupils.

While the overall number of children being carried has decreased by approximately 12% since 1997, this has not resulted in a commensurate reduction in cost. Members will appreciate that a reduction in pupils being carried on an individual bus does not automatically mean that a smaller bus will suffice.

A major focus of the increased investment is the provision of improved services for children with special needs. It is estimated that 33% of the financial allocation for school transport, approximately €50 million, is now being expended on transport services and grants for children with special needs, who account for about 6% of the overall number of children carried. Costs are high in this area because it is not always possible to accommodate these children on regular school transport routes. Accordingly, special transport, such as minibuses, wheelchair-adapted vehicles and taxis, must be provided.

This substantial expansion and improvement in school transport services, mainly for special needs, is best illustrated by the fact that in excess of 600 additional services have been introduced since 1998, almost 400 of which were minibus and taxi services, which were mainly for children with special needs. In addition, the total number of vehicles in the school transport fleet went up from 2,418 in 1998 to over 3,300 in 2006. In the same period, taxis were introduced as a new category of school transport and more than 280 are now in service. Taxi services are primarily for special needs children, for whom transport by car is often the most appropriate option.

Other factors have contributed to the growth in expenditure, such as public demand for improved services in the form of extensions to provide home pick-ups, more buses to facilitate shorter travel time, separate services instead of combined services and more modern and more specialised school buses. Educational choice has also emerged as a significant factor. Traditionally, children attended their nearest primary school. However, parents are now afforded a greater choice of educational facility and many of them exercise this choice by sending their children to schools such as gaelscoileanna, gaelcholáistí and multidenominational schools, in addition to denominational schools. This obviously involves the establishment of new services for eligible children or the payment of a grant to the parent to assist with the cost of making private transport arrangements.

Another factor is the retention of school transport services in rural areas, even where numbers fall below the threshold for establishing a service. In addition, contractors have to be paid higher rates as their cost base rises. This includes factors such as labour, insurance, fuel, spare parts and replacement vehicles. From this outline, I hope I have conveyed to the Members of the House a sense of the scale, development and cost of school transport services. I also convey my appreciation to Bus Éireann for the efficient and effective manner in which it manages such a large operation.

I emphasise that the safety record of the school bus service is good, due in no small part to the skill of school bus drivers and the expertise of Bus Éireann which administers the service. However, there can be no room for complacency in this regard and the small number of tragic accidents which have taken place over the years, including recent incidents, serve as a constant reminder to us to keep safety at the top of the transport agenda.

As part of my commitment to safety, I launched a flashing lights warning system pilot project on 22 school buses in Ennis in January 2005. This system is designed to alert motorists to the presence of a school bus as it stops to allow school children to board and alight and minimise the possibility of accidents occurring at such times. An evaluation of the pilot scheme has been encouraging and I am investigating the possibility of extending it to a small number of other areas. This would enable more extensive tests on the effectiveness of the initiative to be carried out. Based on the outcome of these tests, I hope to be in a position to decide whether to extend the scheme to the remaining parts of the country.

Just weeks prior to the tragic accident in County Meath last May my Department and Bus Éireann had commenced another safety initiative ahead of the introduction of seat belts on school buses. Two demonstrator buses were introduced over a two-week period in counties Meath and Kildare. These buses were fitted with three seats on one side of the aisle and two on the other, all of which were equipped with seat belts. From my Department's viewpoint, the exercise served to test the reaction of pupils to the wearing of seat belts, the type and size of belt fitted and the seating configuration to which I referred. At the time my Department had been working on proposals for phasing out the three-for-two concession on school buses.

Following the unfortunate accident in County Meath, the Government established a working group comprising representatives from the Departments of Education and Science, Transport and Finance to progress measures to enhance school bus safety. Bus Éireann also attended as required. In July 2005, following recommendations from the working group, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, and I announced a package of measures to enhance the safety of school transport operations. The measures included the phasing out of three for two seating on post-primary services by the end of December 2005 and for primary services by the end of December 2006; the acquisition of additional buses by Bus Éireann and the hiring in of additional private vehicles to meet the consequential capacity shortfall; the immediate fitting of seat belts on the Bus Éireann school bus fleet; and the setting of a target date of December 2006 for private buses in the scheme to be fitted with approved seat belts.

I understand from my colleague, the Minister for Transport, that the regulatory framework governing safety belts is settled at European level and addressed through requirements targeted at the vehicle and its occupants. Earlier this month the Minister made regulations giving effect to Directive 2003/20/EC relating to the compulsory wearing of safety belts in motor vehicles. Essentially, these regulations provide that seat belts must be worn once they are fitted. The regulations also oblige owners of buses fitted with safety belts to ensure passengers of such buses are informed of the requirement to wear safety belts while they are seated and the bus is in motion. This obligation may be discharged by one or more of the following means: announcement by the driver or conductor; audio visual means; or signs or pictograms displayed at each seat. l am satisfied the provision of seat belts on school buses constitutes a further safety improvement.

The feasibility of retrofitting safety belts in existing school buses was considered by the working group to which I referred. The group consulted national experts in a number of European Union countries and the European Commission on the matter. In considering a retrofit programme in existing school buses the view was taken that any retrofit specification would need to be as consistent as practicable with EU standards for new vehicles. In general terms these standards provide for the fitment of three-point belts in exposed seats and either three-point or lap belts in other seats. On the basis of observed international practice and EU standards, the working group was of the view that lap belts, with associated safety measures, were the most appropriate option for installation in school buses undergoing a retrofit. The associated safety measures include the use of energy absorbing material on the backs and tops of seats. The view of the working group on this matter informed the decision of the Government that all vehicles used in the school transport scheme would be equipped with safety belts by December 2006.

Having installed seat belts on school buses, it is essential that all children wear them at all times and their behaviour is always safety conscious while travelling on or in the vicinity of school buses. Calls have made for the provision of escorts on all services, not only those provided for children with special needs, as is currently the case. I am having arrangements made for the development of an information campaign for all school transport users which I expect to be launched to coincide with the commencement of the next school year. Schools, parents, Bus Éireann and my Department can work effectively together to develop and reinforce good safety practices on school buses.

I now propose to provide a progress update for Senators in regard to the roll-out of the various measures announced last July. More than 220 vehicles have been hired in from the private sector to address a capacity shortfall arising from the phasing out of the three for two seating arrangements on school buses at post-primary level. In addition, Bus Éireann has purchased 51 modern second-hand coaches and arrangements for the acquisition of a further 30 such vehicles are in hand. The company has also placed orders for the acquisition of 20 new dedicated school buses. A number of the second-hand vehicles have already been received and it is expected that the balance of the vehicles will be delivered later this year.

At this stage, one-for-one seating is in place on all but 31 of the 2,500 post-primary services. Bus Éireann has commenced retrofitting seat belts on its own school bus fleet and work is progressing well. The contractor for the work has developed specifications for each vehicle type in the company's fleet and already 210 of Bus Éireann's cohort of approximately 650 school buses have been fitted with seat belts. Currently, 20 buses per week are being retrofitted, with work set to be accelerated over the summer holidays and expected to be completed later this year.

More than 2,600 private contractors' vehicles operate in the school transport scheme and I understand many of these are already fitted with seat belts. The standard to which belts on contractors' vehicles have been fitted will need to be assessed and Bus Éireann is making arrangements for the necessary inspection to be carried out on a contractual basis. The representative organisations for these contractors have been advised of Department of Transport requirements for retrofitting and discussions have commenced on how best to implement the seat belt installation by the target date.

The move from three-for-two to one-for-one seating arrangements serves to emphasise the priority that must be given to pupils who are fully eligible for school transport. This, in turn, highlights the position of catchment boundary and concessionary pupils, an issue I now propose to address. Post-primary pupils who are eligible for school transport to the post-primary centre in their own catchment area may sometimes elect to attend a post-primary centre in a different catchment area from that in which they reside. In such instances these pupils may avail of school transport to the post-primary centre they have chosen to attend. However, such pupils will only be offered transport if spare seats are available on the relevant bus after all eligible pupils have been accommodated. Such pupils are referred to as "catchment boundary pupils". This rule has always applied.

Catchment boundary pupils are not guaranteed school transport for every year of their schooling. Rather, the granting of transport in such instances is dependent on the availability of spare seats on the buses used to transport eligible students. Any such additional capacity is calculated on a term to term basis. This approach has always pertained. Catchment boundary pupils are required to pay the same contributions as eligible post-primary pupils to avail of school transport. In addition, such pupils are responsible for getting to the catchment boundary or to the nearest point inside that boundary at which they are picked up by the relevant bus.

In the case of primary and post-primary pupils who are ineligible for school transport on the basis of the distance requirements transport may be offered on a concessionary, fare paying basis. The charge for such concessions is €26 per term for primary pupils and €51 per school term for post-primary pupils. Again, it has always been the case that such pupils are not guaranteed school transport for every year of their schooling. The granting of concessionary transport is dependent on the availability of spare seats on the buses used to transport eligible students. Any such additional capacity is calculated on a term-to-term basis. The position I have outlined is in accordance with the provisions of the school transport scheme. It is my intention to apply these provisions as we develop and improve the services.

A related issue which has been topical in recent times is that of catchment boundaries. There have been calls for local and general reviews of these boundaries to enable pupils to be accommodated with school transport to attend a school of their choice. Catchment boundaries have their origins in the establishment of free post-primary education in the late 1960s. For planning purposes, the country was divided into geographic districts, each with several primary schools feeding into a post-primary centre with one or more post-primary schools. The intention was that these defined districts would facilitate the orderly planning of school provision and accommodation needs. They also facilitated the provision of a national school transport service, enabling children from remote areas to get to their nearest school.

While the service has been developed over the years to take account of linguistic and denominational considerations in the matter of school choice, it was never the intention that such choice would be unlimited. Clearly, the cost of operating such a scheme would be unsustainable. It is entirely reasonable for parents to exercise educational choice but expectation as to the extent to which choice can be facilitated must be tempered with realism.

A review of catchment boundaries may be appropriate where, for example, a new post-primary school is established in an area where previously there was none, or conversely where a sole-provider school closes due to declining enrolment. However, to revise boundaries in order to provide school transport for pupils to their school of choice would not be appropriate and it is not my intention to undertake such a review.

Considerable progress has been made over the lifetime of this Government in developing school transport services. I am anxious to ensure that the current momentum, especially in regard to safety, is maintained.

I thank all the Senators for their attention and for having raised this debate initially. I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for your patience.