Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I note from his speech that the cost of the school transport scheme is ¤170 million per annum and that some 114,000 pupils are availing of it. If my arithmetic is correct, this amounts to an individual cost of ¤1,400 per year. I know schemes other than that of the Department with a different limit and in respect of which the catchment area is half suburban and half rural but I do not believe anybody pays ¤1,400 per year per pupil.

When we discussed this issue last year, it was said that special disability cases are included, thus increasing the average. However, I would have believed that in an open market, parents who want to send their children to school would not even pay half that sum. It is the subject of a court case in which it has been argued the service should have been put out to tender. There is no verdict in that case, if I recall correctly. Irrespective of the law courts, it would be interesting for the Department to ask whether there would have been savings had there been competitive tendering. Some two thirds of the contracts are passed on in any case ? it may be an even higher proportion at this stage - to the independent operators. Given the high cost, we must ask whether there are alternative ways in which the service should or could have been provided.

I note Bus Éireann is suing a rival in court on foot of an allegedly libellous document sent to Senator Norris. Senator Norris is not present today. Is the case a good use of public funds given that CIE itself needed an extra ¤36 million the week after the Dáil and Seanad went into recess in July? Mysteriously, it discovered it was short of the money. One has a constitutional right to criticise public policy. One must also bear in mind the rights of Members of the Oireachtas and that the director of the company being sued chose to communicate with a Senator, Senator Norris, on the matter. I am sure Senator Norris will be in contact himself.

The service is valuable. It operates in a society that now has far more cars per household than when it began. It has increased in cost dramatically, from ¤50 million to ¤180 million. There was an increase of 260% between 1997 and 2011. Can the Minister enlighten us on what the value-for-money study stated on the potential to continue serving the children of the nation in a lower cost way?

The Minister of State referred to not diverting money that should be invested in schools to school transport. The Minister of State and Minister face the consequences of a very rapidly rising birthrate. To be spending money on buses when we actually need school places and tuition for the increased numbers that will be in our schools in four or five years is ill advised. We need buildings and teachers for the pupils. This should be the emphasis.

In all times of economic crisis, people say, "Never waste a good crisis". Is this the time to do a root-and-branch analysis of the school bus service? Since 1932, the Department responsible for transport has tried to stop a large, independent bus service from getting into operation. After 80 years of trying, the wrong people own 80% of the buses. There must be a message there for those responsible for transport policy in general and for a major customer in the transport sector such as the Department, which must purchase school bus services. We will be in a better position when we know the result of the court case. We will know whether the proceedings indicate that there should be competitive tendering for the service. I would be concerned about the cost.