Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1999 > Committee on Education and Science > Report - School Transport in Ireland

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Report of the Joint Committee on Education and Science on School Transport in Ireland

November, 1999

CONTENTS

Joint Committee on Education and Science

ORDERS OF REFERENCE

Dáil Éireann

13th November, 1997, (** 28th April, 1998),

Ordered:

(1) (a)That a Select Committee, which shall be called the Select Committee on Education and Science, consisting of 14 members of Dáil Éireann (of whom 4 shall constitute a quorum), be appointed to consider such—

(i)Bills the statute law in respect of which is dealt with by the Department of Education and Science, and

(ii)Estimates for Public Services within the aegis of that Department,

as shall be referred to it by Dáil Éireann from time to time.

(b)For the purpose of its consideration of Bills under paragraph (1)(a)(i), the Select Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 78A(1), (2) and (3).

(c)For the avoidance of doubt, by virtue of his or her ex officio membership of the Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order 84(1), the Minister for Education and Science (or a Minister or Minister of State nominated in his or her stead) shall be entitled to vote.

(2) (a)The Select Committee shall be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Education and Science to consider—

(i)such public affairs administered by the Department of Education and Science as it may select, including bodies under the aegis of that Department in respect of Government policy,

(ii)such matters of policy for which the Minister in charge of that Department is officially responsible as it may select,

(iii)the strategy statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister in charge of that Department pursuant to section 5(2) of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, and shall be authorised for the purposes of section 10 of that Act,

** (iv)such Annual Reports or Annual Reports and Accounts, required by law and laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of bodies under the aegis of the Department(s) specified in paragraph 2(a)(i), and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of these bodies, as it may select.

Provided that the Joint Committee shall not, at any time, consider any matter relating to such a body which is, which has been, or which is, at that time, proposed to be considered by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to the Orders of Reference of that Committee and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993.

Provided further that the Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session, or publishing confidential information regarding, any such matter if so requested either by the body or by the Minister in charge of that Department; and

(v)such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas,

and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(b)The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be 5, of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and 1 a member of Seanad Éireann.

(c)The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 78A(1) to (9) inclusive.

(3)The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dáil Éireann, shall also be Chairman of the Select Committee.

Seanad Éireann

19th November, 1997, (** 30th April, 1998),

Ordered:

(1) (a)That a Select Committee consisting of 5 members of Seanad Éireann shall be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee of Dáil Éireann to form the Joint Committee on Education and Science to consider—

(i)such public affairs administered by the Department of Education and science as it may select, including bodies under the aegis of that Department in respect of Government policy,

(ii)such matters of policy for which the Minister in charge of that Department is officially responsible as it may select,

(iii)the strategy statement laid before each House of the Oireachtas by the Minister in charge of that Department pursuant to section 5(2) of the Public Service Management Act, 1997, and shall be authorised for the purposes of section 10 of that Act,

** (iv)such Annual Reports or Annual Reports and Accounts, required by law and laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of bodies under the aegis of the Department(s) specified in paragraph 1(a)(i), and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of these bodies, as it may select.

Provided that the Joint Committee shall not, at any time, consider any matter relating to such a body which is, which has been, or which is, at that time, proposed to be considered by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to the Orders of Reference of that Committee and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act, 1993.

Provided further that the Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session, or publishing confidential information regarding, any such matter if so requested either by the body or by the Minister in charge of that Department; and

(v)such other matters as may be jointly referred to it from time to time by both Houses of the Oireachtas,

and shall report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(b)The quorum of the Joint Committee shall be 5, of whom at least 1 shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and 1 a member of Seanad Éireann.

(c)The Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 62A(1) to (9) inclusive.

(2)The Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be a member of Dáil Éireann

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

List of Members

Foreword

The Joint Committee on Education and Science was established following Orders of the Dáil of 13 November, 1997 and Seanad of 19 November, 1997.

From the outset the Joint Committee identified among several key areas for examination the policies of the Department of Education and Science in relation to school transport and the implementation of those policies. I am happy to report that this work has now been completed.

The Joint Committee took evidence on this issue from witnesses at three meetings. I wish to thank representatives of the Department of Education and Science, Bus Éireann, PAMBO, FOTO, the Dublin Cycling Campaign, National Parents’ Council (Primary and Post-primary Branches), County Mayo VEC and the Department of the Environment and Local Government, all of whom shared their time and expertise with the Committee. I also wish to thank all other organisations and individuals who met with and assisted the Rapporteurs in their preparation of the report.

I particularly wish to record the Committee’s appreciation of the work of the Rapporteurs, Deputies Denis Naughten and Trevor Sargent, whose draft report provided the stimulus for the Committee’s consideration of this important issue.

The Joint Committee requests that its recommendations in relation to school transport are given serious consideration and requests that the matters raised in this report are debated in both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as possible.

Michael P. Kitt, T.D.,

Chairman.

9 November, 1999.

Report of the Joint Committee on Education and Science on School Transport in Ireland

INTRODUCTION:

The Department of Education & Science School Bus System is the largest public transport network in the country. For example, it uses 2,400 vehicles compared with 900 of Bus Átha Cliath. It carries as many passengers as the DART system each day and covers the entire 26 counties.

This Report, ‘School Transport in Ireland’ is set against a background of a second hand bus fleet and a growing dependency amongst primary and secondary school pupils living within reasonable distance of their schools on ‘lifts’ by a parent or minder in a private car to and from school. Increased traffic congestion and greater danger on the road for cyclists and pedestrians are exacerbating this dependency culture.

For this reason the Report does not just deal with the School Transport Scheme as operated by the Department of Education & Science but refers to other aspects of how pupils travel to and from school. Improving safety and efficiency of travelling to and from school requires the assistance of various Government departments with the Department of Education & Science prioritising and co-ordinating the necessary improvements.

SYNOPSIS OF PREVIOUS REPORTS RELEVANT TO SCHOOL TRANSPORT

1.‘The Operation of the School Transport Scheme’ (Dec. 1990) by Deloitte & Touche for the Department of Education and the Department of Tourism & Transport:

*46% of Bus Eireann total operation. Without the School Bus Scheme present Bus Éireann maintenance would be halved.

*Scheme uses 2,400 buses of which 800 are school buses, 1,100 are mini buses.

*1990 estimates provided £31.8M for school transport services, of which £3.6M is raised from student charges.

*Report sought to clarify perception that Bus Éireann could operate the scheme in a more cost-effective manner or that the use of the private sector could reduce costs.

*Recommendations favoured retaining system with minor cost cutting measures.

*No changes in network design recommended in spite of many complaints about children waiting long periods for buses and long journey times.

*It was found that there is a shortage of legitimate contractors prepared to undertake school bus routes.

*The report is satisfied that the level of inspectors is appropriate to tasks in hand.

*The ‘Yellow Bus’ fleet in 1990 had a maintenance cost of £5M p.a. and overall the report felt maintenance costs could be cut by £500,000 p.a. although the cost savings are not itemized in detail.

*The Report recommended that the 13% additional cost levied on direct overall cost of the scheme by Bus Éireann should be replaced by a levy on the cost per seat mile and the cost of vehicle mile.

*The alternatives of the scheme being managed wholly or in part by the private sector or devolved to a local education authority are seen as more costly than the status quo, but this should be reviewed, the report says.

*The scheme is split into 11 districts with each looking after 600 routes, 1,500 pupils and controlling about 200 vehicles - each district being largely autonomous. The Report suggests no significant change in this structure.

*The Report noted that Bus Éireann do not charge depreciation which results in higher maintenance costs than for a private operator.

*The Report finally recommended extended and increased charges for the scheme.

2.‘School Transport Scheme - Cost Reduction & Administration’, (Feb 1991) by Deloitte & Touche for the Department of Tourism & Transport:

*This Report had a remit to assume no school transport scheme existed and to design one.

*It judged walking and cycling as having ‘simple management needs’, while car or bus usage involved ‘more complex organisation’.

*The Report acknowledges that ‘the safety of children and their security is an important factor; yet elsewhere it states “the Family is adequate to manage the elementary modes of transport’ (e.g. walking, cycling).

*The Report stressed the need for a reliable service, especially at exam times.

*Education institutions were felt to be less than ideal as operating contractors, as their primary focus was teaching.

*Bus Éireann could probably be the best suited operating contractor, but perhaps not exclusively if a competitive tender system operated.

*Only a Pilot Scheme, it was believed, could establish the cost base of any alternative to the present system.

*The criteria for such a Pilot Scheme to operate for 3 years with a further 2 years optional, are outlined in the Report.

3.Report to Department of Education on School Transport (Dec. 1992) by Bastow Charleton, Chartered Accountants:

Section 1

Parties Involved in School Transport:

(a)Department of Education which funds the scheme and interacts with Bus Éireann and schools etc,

(b)Bus Éireann which manages the scheme and caters for 165,000 pupils (approx) and contracts out services for 68,000 pupils (approx).

(c)Chief Executive Officer of the Vocational Education Committee who acts as Transport Liaison Officer for his or her respective county and who assesses eligibility of pupils and deals with complaints.

(d)School Principals who verify information and approve a payment form every four weeks for private bus operators, which they in turn submit to Bus Éireann.

(e)Private Bus Companies who respond to offers to tender each year; successful companies are then allocated routes and various requirements with which they must comply.

Section II

The report considers advantages and disadvantages of devolving administration of the scheme to:

(a)School Boards of Management,

(b)Parents’ Associations,

(c)Local individuals/private organizations or

(d)Chief Executive Officers employed by the county V.E.C.

It concludes that the C.E.O. is the most appropriate person to administer the school transport scheme.

Section III

However, advantages and disadvantages make the above course of action difficult to assess without a trial pilot scheme.

Section IV

Co. Cork (excluding the city) is the chosen area for a pilot scheme with 16,800 pupils availing of the school bus scheme, i.e. 10% of the total nationally.

Section V

Here the report sets out the areas of responsibility in the pilot scheme.

Section VI

Using projected costs, the report claims that a C.E.O. administered Co. Cork pilot scheme would cost £3,376,925 compared to a Bus Éireann current cost of £3,825,842 - thus saving £448,917.

Section VII

The report looks at ways the scheme can be improved presently and cites newer buses and flexibility, but on the issue of overcrowding on a school bus, a solution is not recommended except for local monitoring.

Section VIII

Other recommendations are made such as a charge on primary school pupils using school transport, certain large schools acquiring their own bus.

In assessing the report, the Department of Education states ‘The report is seriously flawed and contains many inaccuracies’. In relation to the pilot scheme the Department states ‘The consultants lack an appreciation of the scale of operation and administration needed for Co. Cork’.

4.School Transport Review Report (January 1998) by the School Transport Review Committee under former Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach T.D.

Chapter I - Recommendations:

This committee constrained itself by not recommending a package which would increase the total cost of the scheme to the Department of Education.

Chapter II - Recommendations - Eligibility:

Pupils in disadvantaged urban areas living too close to a school to be eligible ought to be assisted by the programme for Breaking The Cycle of Education Disadvantage, rather than changing eligibility rules the 1998 report recommends.

Chapter III - Recommendations - School Enrolment Cost & Service Provision:

The 1998 report recommends that under-utilised services be cut back so that improvements elsewhere can be implemented.

Chapter IV - Recommendations - Parental Contributions:

The 1998 report recommends an annual payment of £90 per year for any pupil regardless of age to replace the current contribution of £23 per term for Junior cycle pupils, £37 for Senior cycle pupils, while eligible primary pupils currently travel for free. A ceiling on the cost per family would be £270. Medical card holders would be required to pay a third of the standard cost with a maximum for a card-holding household of £90 per year. The 1998 report recommends the above amounts to be paid in two instalments in July and January.

Chapter V - Recommendations - Some Operational Issues:

The 1998 report rejected commercial advertising on school buses, yet lack of finance is cited as the reason for recommending no change in the 3:2 seating arrangement on school buses.

Regarding journey times, the 1998 report recommends that the 3 hour maximum journey and waiting time per day be reduced to 2.5 hours.

Chapter VI - Recommendations - Religious & Linguistic Issues:

The 1998 report recommends some minor administrative changes, but none that would overtly affect the service provided under this heading.

Chapter VII - Recommendations - Services for Pupils with Special Needs:

The 1998 report aims to ensure no child with special needs is picked up before 8.00 a.m. and set down after 4.00 p.m., and to realise this would cost £0.5Million which could be found partly from the extra revenue generated by the revised system of contributions generally. Similarly, resources are needed to adapt mini buses for wheelchair users at £5-8,000 per bus and the cost of shoulder and lap seat belts is approximately £100 per bus seat. The 1998 report recommends that the 1,000 pupils approx. who need such harnesses should be provided for. The 1998 report sees escorts for pupils with special needs as a ‘major priority’. More involvement of parents in escorting duties and larger allowances to supplement salary were seen as part of the short term solution.

Chapter VIII - Recommendations - Financial Implications:

The 1998 report costs the total additional expenditure of major recommendations at £3,848,000.

Chapter IX - Recommendations - Conclusions:

The 1998 report insists its recommendations be treated as ‘a complete package’ so that ‘all sectors of the scheme should experience some improvement in service’, and that rules be ‘transparent’ and ‘applied rigorously’.

Background and History of School Transport Scheme

The provision of organised school transport for children in Ireland dates from the early part of the century. A series of ad hoc schemes were set up from 1910 to the 1960s to ensure that schools were acceptable to children of school-going age. Responsibility for running these schemes was vested in school managers who received grants to cover costs.

The introduction of national transport schemes at primary and post-primary level, which coincided with the introduction of free post-primary education in 1967, led to the increased demand for school transport schemes for children at both primary and post-primary levels. The Department of Education in 1967 to ensure equality of access to schools established the schemes. Bus Éireann administers this service as agents for the Department of Education.

The Current School Transport Scheme

The school transport scheme which was established in 1967 currently carries about 160,000 pupils each school day, 91,000 of whom are in the post-primary sector, 61,000 are primary pupils and about 8,000 are pupils with special needs. Transport is provided primarily on school bus services especially set up for the purpose, but also on the ordinary public bus and train services. A charge is made for post-primary transport, although parents who are medical cardholders may be exempted from paying this charge. By its nature, the scheme is mainly rural based.

The total cost of the scheme is approximately £44 million per year, about £5 million of which is covered by parental contributions or by concessionary fees.

Bus Éireann as agent administers the scheme for the Department of Education & Science. Bus Éireann is responsible for the planning of routes and employment of school bus drivers and private contractors. At post-primary level, Bus Éireann in conjunction with the Chief Executive Officers of the Vocational Education Committees (VECs), acting as Transport Liaison Officers operates the scheme. Bus Éireann may operate a service itself or may contract it to a private operator. In its direct operations under the scheme, Bus Éireann uses 700 school buses and also carries some 12,000 pupils under the scheme on scheduled services. There are currently about 1,100 private contractors operating some 1,800 vehicles.

The Primary School Scheme: Current Situation

To be eligible for transport, a child must be no less than 4 years of age and, if less than 10 years, live not less than 2 miles from the nearest suitable national school (as determined by the Department) or, if over 10 years of age, must live not less than 3 miles from the nearest suitable national school. Where a school has been closed and amalgamated with another, children for whom the closed school would have been the nearest are eligible for transport, without reference to the distance rules, to the school of amalgamation even though this may not be the nearest school. Eligible pupils travel free of charge.

Where no service is provided because numbers are too small or potential cost is too great, eligible pupils who live at least 3 miles from the school for which they have transport eligibility qualify for a Remote Area Transport Grant.

If spare seats are available, ineligible pupils may travel on services provided under the scheme as long as they fall into one of the following categories:-

•they were eligible, but have reached the age of 10 years and are no longer eligible because they live less than 3 miles from school,

•they are eligible for transport to their nearest school, but no transport is provided and they are travelling to their next nearest school.

A charge of £20 per term is levied for this facility, except in the last of these cases where a parent/guardian holds a medical card in respect of the family. Such passengers are referred to as concessionary passengers.

Post Primary: Current Situation

To be eligible, a pupil must:-

(a)be enrolled for an approved course in a recognised post-primary school,

(b)be at least 12 years of age,

(c)have completed sixth standard in primary school,

(d)live at least 3 miles, by the shortest walking distance, from the appropriate post-primary centre, where the latter is the centre catering for the catchment area in which the pupil lives.

Eligible pupils carried on a service provided under the scheme pay a term contribution of £26 if in the Junior Cycle and £40 if in the Senior Cycle (subject to a maximum family contribution of £84 per term), unless a parent/guardian holds a family medical card.

A service is regarded as having been provided for a post-primary pupil if that pupil lives within 3 miles of the route of the service.

Pupils eligible for transport to a school within their catchment area but attending a school outside their catchment area may, if there is room, travel to their centre of attendance on a school bus which they catch within the catchment area of that centre. Such passengers are referred to as catchment-boundary pupils and pay the same contribution as eligible pupils (that is £26 or £40 per term). As under the primary-school scheme, ineligible pupils may travel as concessionary passengers on a scheme service within their own catchment area if there are spare seats. There is a charge of £40 per term for such concessionary passengers.

School Enrolments, Costs and Service Provision

Current Regulations and Practice

Under the primary school scheme, a service will not be provided unless there are at least 10 eligible pupils within a distinct locality who would travel on the service. However, a service may (if the cost is reasonable) be provided in a distance area if:-

•there are at least 7 eligible pupils, 4 of whom live at least 3 miles from the school,

•there are at least 5 eligible children living at least 3 miles from the school,

•there are at least 4 eligible children living at least 4 miles from the school,

•there are at least 3 eligible children living at least 5 miles from the school.

In the case of services to schools of amalgamation, 7 eligible pupils are required for the provision of a service.

Under the post-primary scheme, a service will not be provided if there are less than 7 eligible pupils wishing to avail themselves of that service.

If the numbers using an existing service decline below these limits, the practice is that Bus Éireann advises the Department as to the cost of maintaining the service and a judgement is then made as to whether the service should be continued. Thus, there is an asymmetry in the operation of the limits. The provision of a new service where the number of eligible pupils is below the limits is precluded by the regulations, whereas there is (in principle) discretion regarding the maintenance of an existing service where the number of eligible pupils declines to a level below those limits. However, in practice, no discretion exists.

Parental Contributions

Current Situation

At present, eligible primary school pupils are carried free of charge, though those carried by concession when spare seats are available are charged £20 per term.

The post-primary scheme provides that, for eligible and catchment-boundary pupils, there shall be a parental contribution of £26 per term for pupils in the Junior Cycle and of £40 per term for pupils in the Senior Cycle. For concessionary passengers, the charge is £40 regardless of whether it be with respect to concessionary primary or post-primary, eligible post-primary, catchment-boundary passengers or any combination of these categories. No contribution is payable for eligible or catchment -boundary pupils when a parent/guardian holds a family medical card, but possession of a card does not remove the liability for the charge for (primary or post-primary) concessionary passengers.

The 3:2 Rating of Capacity

The carrying capacity of school buses is determined by the Road Traffic (Construction Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations - SI 190 of 1963, as amended by SI 273 of 1967. Under existing Public Services Vehicle Regulation, the licensed carrying capacity of all vehicles engaged in the school transport scheme is based on a ratio of 3 passengers for every 2 adult seats. These regulations permit 3:2 on normal public services for children under the age of 15 years. The school transport scheme is special only in that this arrangement is also permitted for older pupils.

Double-tripping, Waiting & Journey

In the organisation of school transport services, all routes are planned in such a way as to ensure that, as far as possible, every eligible pupil has a reasonable standard of service as regards timetable, while ensuring that vehicles are fully utilised in the most efficient manner. In order to achieve this, individual vehicles are generally required to operate more than one service and this frequently means that some pupils have to make an early start in the mornings and to wait for some time in the evenings. This has always been a feature of the services throughout the country.

Religious Issues: Current Situation

Soon after the scheme was introduced, it was recognised that, in almost all cases, the nearest school would be under Catholic management and that it would be an infringement of the civil rights of a religious minority to deny eligibility for transport when the nearest school was not acceptable to parents on religious grounds. At the time, the only religious minority recognised in this context were Protestants and the eligibility condition henceforth has referred to the nearest school under Protestant management. This was really no more than an extension of the concept of nearest suitable school. In more recent times, those wishing to send their children to multi-denominational schools have been treated similarly.

In these cases, the maximum number required for the provision of a service to be considered is 5, which are lower than under the basic scheme.

At the post-primary level, Protestant pupils may cross catchment area boundaries while retaining eligibility. This issue has not yet arisen in relation to multi-denominational post-primary centres.

Although, as noted above, the definition of eligibility for transport is different, grants in place of transport for eligible pupils operate in exactly the same way as under the basic scheme (the Remote Area Transport grant), with the same schedule of rates. For Protestant pupils (but not for those attending multi-denominational schools), the grant scheme is administered separately and is known as Scheme D.

Irish-language Schools

Essentially, the same special concessions as in the religious case are made for those parents who wish their children to attend Irish-language schools, be they primary or post-primary mutatis mutandis, the same recommendations apply (though not the recommendation to broaden the application of the concessions).

With one exception, the regulations are linguistically symmetrical; they apply to those wishing to send their children to an English-language school when the nearest school is Irish speaking as well as vice versa. The exception occurs in relation to Gaeltachtaí, where all schools are Irish speaking. A pupil living in a Gaeltacht must, for transport eligibility, attend the nearest school. Furthermore, a post-primary pupil living outside a Gaeltacht may cross a catchment boundary to attend a Gaeltacht school but one living in a Gaeltacht may not cross the boundary in the other direction to attend an English speaking school.

Services for Pupils with Special Needs

Services are currently provided to over 100 special schools, the majority of which cater for the mentally handicapped or emotionally disturbed, the physically handicapped and for the aurally or visually impaired. In addition, services are provided to over 400 special classes attached to regular schools - those classes catering for travellers, the mildly or moderately mentally handicapped, and those with hearing or special difficulties. The scheme also provides grant-aid for pre-school travelling children.

In all, the scheme assists almost 8,000 pupils and involves approximately 540 vehicles, nearly all of which are privately operated mini-buses (Including approximately 60 mini-buses adapted for wheelchair users).

Any pupil professionally recommended for special education is eligible, but there are of course cost constraints on the provision of services. A new pupil will not be provided with service if such provision would adversely affect the service to existing pupils on the route (the scheme strives to provide home pick-up to pupils with special needs) or if the result would be to raise the unit cost of the service to an excessive level.

If no service is provided, an eligible pupil qualifies for a Medical Grant. No contribution is required in respect of pupils with special needs.

Issues concerning school transport for those with special needs were considered most recently by the Special Education Review Committee (1993). That Committee (in para. 7.3.4 of its report) recommended, inter alia: that increased funding be made to extend and restructure services; that the maximum grant (then £600 per year) be doubled and subsequently indexed to the mileage rates paid to private contractors; that funds be made available for the provision of escorts; and that the respective responsibilities of the Departments of Education and Health be clarified.

International Comparisons

Canada

Some of the main features of the Canadian School Transport system were described as follows:-

•Each school authority at Primary and Post Primary level is responsible for contracting bus services for their school.

•The school bus service is free in Canada; the charges to the school are made on an economic and profit making basis.

•The service is 60% Rural and 40% Urban. The Transit (public service) is used primarily in Urban areas.

•All operational and regulatory matters such as route planning, home pick ups, types and size of vehicles, seating and safety, are determined by the Operators.

•School bus vehicles purchased under tax efficient leasing arrangements are replaced by Charterways every 6-9 years.

•The school determines eligibility and basically everybody is eligible. There are no guidelines for eligibility and basically everybody is eligible. There are no guidelines for eligibility in terms of distance to nearest school, age or catchment boundary.

•There is a no fault insurance policy in operation. The cost of insurance is very low.

EU

All 6-16 passenger minibuses and/or coaches used on journeys specifically for school children must be fitted with seat belts.

Other countries have similar problems to the Irish School Transport system. In Germany, overcrowding is an issue and in Austria the condition of the fleet is a problem. In France, investment is provided for the integration of school transport and regular traffic.

There is currently no European legislation that relates specifically to school transport, nor does the Commission have any plans to bring forward such legislation.

The reasons for this approach are twofold:-

Firstly, and most relevant, the management, financing and even the definition of what constitutes school transport all vary considerably throughout the European Union and the specific needs in relation to school transport change from region to region.

Secondly, the Commission strongly supports improved safety standards for all types for road transport and pedestrians and we are consequently keen to bring forward legislation that improves safety for all bus users.

Significant progress has been achieved in adopting EU legislation concerning bus safety in general and there are still a number of proposals before the Council and the Parliament.

Rules Specifically Applying To School Transport

There is no EU legislation that applies specifically to school transport. None of the 15 EU Member States requires that school transport must have vehicles of a special design or colour, nor that additional driving rules (eg. No overtaking when stationary) apply for vehicles used for school transport.

Consequently buses, both as scheduled public services and also as charters exclusively for collecting school children, coaches and minibuses are all used in the EU for transporting school children.

The United Kingdom has had since 1997, rules requiring that vehicles that are chiefly for the transportation of children must be fitted with 2-point seatbelts. Thus, a vehicle hired to transport children on a trip to a zoo must be fitted with seatbelts, but a regular bus service that is used by

children to travel to/from school does not need vehicles fitted with seatbelts, since the bus is providing a service for all the community and is not there chiefly for the transportation of children.

The UN-ECE has adopted a standard design of symbol for the identification of large passenger vehicles that are transporting children. Most EU Member States require the use of this symbol the silhouette of a parent and child on a yellow square or diamond around 18 x 18. However, such symbols are commonly permanently fixed to passenger vehicles and so are often to be seen on vehicles when they are not actually transporting children. Consequently this sign has little, if any, value.

Rules Covering Vehicle Safety For Large Passenger Vehicles

There is considerable legislation at EU level concerning safety for buses, coaches and minibuses. This legislation basically falls into two categories; technical standards and social legislation.

Technical Standards For Large Passenger Vehicles

There are currently 51 sets of adopted EU legislation (known as Directives) which lay down European standards for component parts of motor vehicles. 38 of these Directives apply to buses, coaches and mini-coaches, including standards for brakes, safety glass, lights, fuel tanks etc.

Future Actions

Unfortunately, legislation in the area of transport safety is often driven by knee-jerk reactions to particular accidents. This makes it impossible to predict with an accuracy the direction that future legislation will take.

In the area of technical standards, the Directive on construction standards for large passenger vehicles will be adopted if all goes smoothly it should be adopted around Winter 1999/Spring 2000. However, it is unlikely that further technical standards directly relating to large passenger vehicles will be proposed without any research, such as crash-testing, since there is very little detailed data (in the public domain) on large passenger vehicles.

In the area of social legislation the introduction of the electronic tachograph will dramatically increase the efficiency of controls by enforcement authorities. This in itself should have a significant effect in reducing accidents involving coaches on long-distance journeys at least.

It can be envisaged that the Commission will take more steps to try and further increase the health standards that must be met by bus and coach drivers, as well as possibly making the driving tests more rigorous for such licences.

Finally, the European Commission has successfully created the first database of road transport accident statistics covering all 15 Member States. Future work will now focus on refining the accident data. Since it is recognised that the relative rarity of major accidents involving large passenger vehicles has a distorting effect on accident statistics this is an area where an effort will be make to refine data. However, it should be noted that a European equivalent of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board charged with accident investigation throughout the USA currently does not exist, leading to variable approaches to accident investigation in the Community and no recognised system of sharing knowledge gained from national accident investigation.

School Transport or Community Service?

The school transport service has been developed until recently without any reference to the more general transport need of the local community. In the last number of years Bus Éireann have begun to use a small number of school buses to provide a transport service in rural areas. While acknowledging this change in policy school buses are in the main used for a short time every day and during the school year resulting in high unit costs.

A community transport service in rural areas could provide a range of services to meet the needs of local communities. Such a service could be developed as a voluntary/State partnership. While school transport would have priority, communities could identify their own needs, including bringing older people to shopping, doctor, day-care facilities; access for people with disabilities, parents and children to mother toddler groups; transport in the evening to social functions. Costs would be spread over a wider range of users and contribute to lease/purchase and maintenance of better use/minibus fleet.

In order for such a service to become operable it is important that the State provide funding to initiate such services.

There are obstacles for children with special needs having the option of choosing mainstream schools, particularly if special-needs transport is isolated from the general transport service. The initiative of the Minister for Education and Science in promoting mainstreaming, appears to be at variance with the same Department’s views on transport for children. Where walking to school would otherwise prove beneficial, children face obstacles such as heavy school bags, urban congestion and traffic.

The congestion/pollution caused by parents driving children to school would be alleviated by having a good integrated transport system.

Recommendations

Administration of Scheme

Over the years there have been many calls for the privatisation of the school transport service which is run by Bus Éireann. At present, Bus Éireann contracts out 40% of the school bus service to private operators. From reviewing the current service in some detail, it would be difficult to see cost saving by the privatisation of the service.

To the contrary, the withdrawal of the Bus Éireann contract to run the service could result in its collapse, and see the development of private cartels, which could hold the Government to ransom. With the large amount of administration involved, it would be doubtful if the private operators would be able to put a satisfactory alternative in place.

Currently, Bus Éireann implements the safety regulations in relation to the service. This issue is of vital importance and it is felt that, even if the private operators could organise safety standards on a regional basis, it would be near to impossible to have uniformity throughout the system.

Recommendation

The Committee believes that the status quo regarding the administration of the scheme should remain with Bus Éireann who have the technical expertise and staff to perform this duty, on behalf of the State. It must also be noted that the Department of Education and Science is the regulatory body, setting down the rules and regulations governing the scheme and is entitled to all information regarding the management of the scheme. Therefore, ultimate responsibility for the scheme lies with the Department.

Tendering

The question of fairness of the current tender procedure has been raised by a number of the witnesses who attended the Committee. There is a perception among private bus operators of inequity in the system whereby Bus Éireann both administers and operates school transport. The private operators believe that Bus Éireann chooses certain routes for itself and tenders out routes requiring smaller buses, or routes with shorter distances.

Recommendation

This responsibility of tendering out all routes should remain with Bus Éireann. It is recommended that 2-year contracts be signed with each operator with a yearly review of safety standards. It is also recommended that an Auditing System be put in place to ensure equality of treatment between Bus Éireann and private operators.

Other factors must also be considered such as competence of drivers, financial standing of the company, safety standards of vehicles, quality of vehicles, ability to provide adequate service and back-up, tax clearance status, MOT status, adequate insurance and proper licensing of vehicles.

Distance to School

In many parts of the country, there has been criticism of the measurement of distance from a students home to a central point within a town (this exists where there are a number of schools in a town).

From discussions on this issue at the Committee, it was stated that this is the fairest method, rather than considering distance to the school in question, as this may end up with a situation where one pupil in a household is eligible, but another pupil in the same household attending a different school, may be ineligible due to distance.

Recommendation

It is recommended to amend the current regulation to state the following:-

“Distance from a pupil’s home, for eligibility purposes, will be measured to a central point within the town or to the school which the pupil is attending, and that the greater distance will be the distance to be considered for eligibility.”.

3:2 Ratio

Currently the Department of the Environment Regulations permit the 3:2 Ratio for all school children regardless of age. It is unacceptable to have pupils who are physically similar to adults having to try to fit 3 to a seat, which is only suitable for 2 people. This situation has led to serious overcrowding on some school buses and has major safety implications on school buses. Overcrowding permits the development of anti-social behaviour such as bullying and physical aggression, which cannot be detected and addressed by the drivers.

Recommendation

The 3:2 Ratio should be abolished on all second level buses.

Storage Space

The current situation where school bags and sports bags are stored in the aisles, due to lack of adequate space, is causing serious problems and major safety implications.

Recommendation

Adequate storage space to be provided on buses, especially those transporting second-level pupils.

Seatbelts

The lack of provision of seat belts on school buses has been raised both within the committee and from outside by parents and their representative organisations. The provision of seat belts on buses used in the provision of school transport as proposed by the European Union will have major ramifications for our system if enforced. It would mean that students would each be entitled to a seat.

Recommendation - Special Education Buses

Immediate introduction of harnesses for all children.

Recommendation - Primary School Buses

The introduction of seatbelts for all pupils on newly commissioned school buses.

First Aid

The current service has come in for a lot of criticism in relation to this issue. Many buses do not carry First Aid kits and there is no way for the driver to seek help in the case of a major emergency.

Recommendation

All school buses must carry a First Aid Kit and it must be an essential element on buses.

All school buses must have communication with the local depot, either through the use of a mobile phone or radio transmitter.

The provision of a simple First Aid Kit is essential on buses. Appropriate training in first aid must be provided for drivers and helpers.

All bus drivers and minders to be trained in First Aid and must complete a refresher course each Summer.

Escorts

This issue has led to a large amount of debate in recent years. A bus driver can find it very difficult to control children, particularly very young children, while driving. In the past this has led to a small but significant number of minor accidents on buses. Smoking is now banned on all public transport but due to overcrowding the driver is unable to detect this unacceptable behaviour.

The Department of Education & Science has provided funding to Special Schools to employ Escorts on their school buses but, at present some schools are refusing to implement the scheme due to lack of guidelines.

At present there is no system in place for screening escorts and schools believe that the responsibility for employing escorts should lie with Bus Éireann who administer the scheme for the Department of Education & Science.

Recommendation

The Committee endorses the recommendations of the School Transport Review Report (January 1998) relating to harnesses, vehicle adaptation, shorter Journey times and the recrutiment of escorts for services to pupils with special needs.

The Department of Education & Science would immediately draw up guidelines for the recruitment and employment of escorts. That the Department transfer responsibility for the appointment and employment of escorts from the Boards of Management of schools to Bus Éireann and that escorts be immediately provided on all special education buses.

The phased introduction of minders on all primary level buses with the immediate introduction of minders on all buses carrying 25 or more pupils.

Department of Education & Science guidelines for Escorts and training should include training to show how features along the bus route, aspects of each journey and bus based activities can enrich the educational experience of each pupil using the bus.

Private Operators Outside the Current Scheme

Currently, there are a number of operators who provide a service to schools outside the current scheme. The regulations within the Department of the Environment govern the licensing of these buses. However, the strict safety standards of the scheme run by the Department of Education & Science do not govern these operators.

Recommendation

The current safety standards of the school transport scheme would be extended to these private services. In order to implement this, these operators must seek a licence to transport school children from the Department of Education & Science.

Condition of School Bus Fleet

A large amount of concern has been raised regarding the condition and roadworthiness of the school bus fleet from both discussions at meetings of the committee and from representations received by committee members.

While both the Bus Éireann and private operators receive a DOE Certificate of Road Worthiness, which certifies the mechanical worthiness, no account is taken of the suitability on the passenger carriage area.

While the committee acknowledges that both Bus Éireann and private operators are in the process of replacing older vehicles we feel that more must be done to ensure an adequate standard for the transport of pupils.

Most of our school buses are very old. Both witnesses and Committee Members questioned as to whether school buses were subjected to the same rigorous DOE test to which private, commercial vehicles are subjected. Many of the seats are defective and in some cases, windows are defective and/or missing and roofs leaking.

Frequent breakdowns occur. The provision of a mobile phone would limit the disruption and distress caused. It would enable the driver to get a replacement bus quickly and this would minimise the dangers, which may arise when buses break down and students find they must seek an alternative route/lift to school.

Storage capacity under current seating provision is not provided in the same capacity or ratio. In viewing the amount of gear, equipment, lunches and books which students require the lack of adequate storage facility could be a safety hazard.

Recommendation

All school buses must display a Certificate of Roadworthiness certified by the Department of the Environment & Local Government.

The Department of the Environment & Local Government Roadworthiness test would be amended to include the passenger area of the bus to ensure adequate safety and comfort.

This would include:-

•Ensuring all leaks in the passenger area of the bus are fully repaired.

•Seatbelts and safety harnesses are properly attached.

•Adequate storage space for bags etc.

•Safety signs that are legible both inside and outside.

•Heating system is in full working condition.

•Seating is properly attached to frame and floor.

•First Aid Kit is complete.

•Communication system to local depot is in full working order.

•Any other condition deemed necessary for proper safety and comfort.

The recent provision for special needs pupils on special school buses should be extended to ordinary school buses offering transport to special needs students in mainstream education. Seat belts, hoists and an escort to be provided where needed.

The aim of Bus Éireann and the private operator must be to significantly reduce the age profile and improve the quality of the school bus fleet and this should be taken into consideration when considering tenders.

Where possible, school buses used in the school transport service should include rural services as this would maximise the use of these buses, and encourage the operators to invest in a higher standard of vehicle. This should also be taken into consideration when considering tenders with priority given to those who provide a rural service, or on a route which another operator does not service.

Alighting School Buses

The biggest danger for pupils travelling on school buses is when passengers alight at their destination. While statistics are unavailable, there have been a number of accidents, some fatal, involving students alighting from buses.

In the United States, school bus drivers must flash their red lights (red strobe lights with alternating flashes) each time they stop to unload or pick up children. This function is regardless of whether the pupils will cross the road. When these red lights flash the motorists in both directions must come to a complete stop (exception: a divided road or motorway).

Recommendation

The Department of the Environment & Local Government should assess the feasibility of implementing such a regulation on Irish roads as a matter of urgency, to ensure the protection of children alighting and boarding school buses on public roads.

Safety Education

While Bus Éireann provides safety information to each pupil and notices on buses, there is a need to provide a more comprehensive method of safety awareness regarding transport on school buses for pupils.

Recommendation

The transport liaison officer in conjunction with Bus Éireann and school principals should ensure that within the first four weeks of the commencement of the school year that all pupils who use school buses have one class dedicated to school bus safety.

Double Tripping

The current situation where double tripping is used with the vast majority of school buses has come in for a lot of criticism from parents and pupils alike. In the majority of cases it would be uneconomical to remove the double tripping and there would also be difficulty in obtaining the additional buses required.

However, there is a need for this system to be regulated to ensure a fair and balanced service for all students.

Recommendations

Where the opportunity is available not to use double tripping, it should be entered into. For example, an operator may be able to serve a post primary centre and then serve a national school having both sets of pupils present at the school on time.

Where this is not possible, the following system must be implemented as soon as possible. If the following is not feasible, the routing should be alternated thereby ensuring equality of service. While this may not suit drivers it must be remembered that the service is provided for students and not for the flexibility of the drivers.

•Students who are on the early pick-up from their homes must be the first run to be collected from school in the evening and vice versa.

•Where students are dropped off at a school early, or picked up late, the Department of Education and Science must provide funding for the schools in question to keep the school open and provide for supervision.

•Waiting and travelling time for post-primary school pupils to be reduced from 3 hours to 2.5 hours with the aim that this would be reduced to 2 hours where feasible. For primary school pupils, the present 1.5 hour limit should remain but the aim would be to reduce this to 1 hour where feasible.

Opening of School

This can be a major factor in some post primary centres with schools closing at different times of the day, and different days off. While the committee acknowledges that the transport liaison officer has in many parts of the country ensured these variations are few, there still remain some differences.

Recommendations

There must be an onus on school authorities in conjunction with the Transport Liaison Officer to ensure that opening and closing times are fully co-ordinated. Also, closing days should be co-ordinated where practicable and with consideration given to religious differences in the ethos of a school. Schools must adopt a co-ordinated approach to school closures so as to facilitate the effective provision of the school transport service to students and to minimise the disruption to family life.

Where agreement cannot be reached the Transport Liaison Office should issue a calendar to all schools concerned of the service to be provided.

During examination time when the number of pupils is dramatically reduced, Bus Éireann and private operators insofar as is practicable must ensure that only smaller vehicles are used. This would help to reduce the cost of the service.

Eligibility

The issue of eligibility is one, which is often raised by parents. Currently, eligibility is considered on the grounds of distance to the nearest school. In a number of cases, the nearest school is not suitable to accommodate the pupil in question. For example, the school may not be physically capable of taking an additional student due to accommodations problems. Another issue which may arise cncerns a physically disabled pupil where the nearest school may be a two/multi storey complex with with no accessibility.

Recommendation

A suitable school as defined in the regulations must be one which accommodates the pupil in question. If the school is unable to accommodate the pupil, then the next nearest suitable school shall be the one considered for eligibility purposes.

Bullying

Where the existence of bullying can be validated by the school principal and/or by psychological assessment, then this shall make the nearest school unsuitable for eligibility purposes.

Distance

The current variation between those under 10 versus over 10 (2 vs. 3 miles) for primary school pupils, should be removed and thereby ensure that all pupils regardless of age should be considered as eligible if living not less than 2 miles from the nearest school. This 2 mile rule should also be introduced for all junior cycle post primary pupils in light of the current weight of school bags (currently this distance is 3 miles for all post primary pupils). The current 3 mile rule, for a pupil who lives within 3 miles of a route, as being provided a service should be reduced to 2 miles for all post-primary pupils

Catchment Areas

The catchment areas were, in most cases, drawn up in the late 1960s and, in the light of subsequent changes in the distribution of population and in educational practice, a review of area boundaries is overdue. A review of catchment areas should also be initiated as soon as possible. Some catchment areas are very small and consequently seriously restrict the choice of school for post-primary pupils. Catchment boundaries and bus routes need to be reviewed on an ongoing basis to allow for efficient delivery of service, safety and freedom of choice in relation to schools by parents.

•Some schools reported buses overlapping on sections of routes where two catchment areas meet.

•Children travel unnecessarily long distances on some routes because of a closed school situation, even though another school may be available in a different parish nearby.

There may, nonetheless, be certain circumstances in which cross-boundary eligibility may be considered on educational grounds, one such circumstance is as follows:-

Many parents have firm views as to whether they wish their teenage children to attend single-sex or co-educational schools. Whichever they prefer, it may not be available in their catchment area. The Department should investigate the possibility of extending eligibility to pupils attending post-primary schools outside the catchment area (as is currently allowed for those attending Protestant or Irish-medium schools or those needing remedial teaching), in cases where parents send their children across the boundary because no suitable school (that is, in this context, single-sex or co-educational, as the case may be) in their own area.

Post Leaving Certificate Courses

Where possible, and where capacity exists PLC students should be accommodated under the same conditions which prevail for a senior cycle pupil. When a new service is being developed, or tender documents drawn up for an existing service, consideration should be given to the feasibility of accommodating PLC students.

Supervision at Drop off/Pick up Points

Major concerns have been raised by many interested parties relating to the lack of supervision of pupils from the time they reach their destination in the morning and when the school opens. There is a similar problem in the evenings, prior to pupils being picked up for the homeward journey.

Recommendation

The Committee believes that it is unacceptable to have students standing outside schools in the rain and poor weather etc. unsupervised. It recommends that the Department of Education & Science provides funding to the Boards of Management. To employ a supervisor and ensure the school remains open from the time that the first pupils are dropped off at the school until they are picked up that evening.

Appeals System

Every year hundreds of representations are made to the Department of Education & Science requesting the provision/extension of a school bus service. While the Department adjudicated on these in a fair and even-handed manner, there is no formal appeals procedure on the decision taken by the Department.

There is also a need for clear definitions of responsibility relating to the service and a need for the reasons behind decisions to be given to those involved.

Recommendation

The Committee recommends that a formalised appeals system be introduced in respect of the school transport scheme. A monitoring/co-ordinating system for the scheme should also be established as there are too many bodies involved from Bus Éireann, and transport liaison officers to the Department of Education & Science. This system would also be responsible for the auditing of the tendering routes by Bus Éireann to ensure that the most cost effective operator meeting the requirements receives the contract.

This would safeguard the integrity of the scheme and ensure public trust and confidence in the Departments decision-making procedures.

The Committee’s attention has been drawn to the fact that a small number of pupils are required to leave school early in the evenings or are dropped off after school starts in order to avail of a school transport service. It is the belief of the committee that this situation is unacceptable and recommends that this practice be eliminated immediately.

The need for Designated Safe Routes to School

According to current trends, road fatalities are likely to increase from 472 in 1997 to at least 550 in 2002 (as stated in the Government Strategy for Road Safety 1998-2002). The need to reduce road accidents as well as counteract traffic congestion has focused local authorities such as Dublin Corporation on ways to develop safe routes to schools. However, well intentioned plans will not restore the confidence of parents sufficiently for them to allow their children to walk or cycle to school. A well resourced plan from the Minister for the Environment & Local Government in consultation with the Minister for Education & Science and the Minister for Health & Children is urgently required to be put into effect.

Where safe routes to school are designated, consideration must be given to slower speed limits. The U.K. Department of Transport Study in 1992 entitled Killing Speed & Saving Lives, (DETR London), published findings which showed that at 40 m.p.h. a pedestrian or cyclist hit by a car has only a 15% chance of surviving. At 30 m.p.h. the figures rises to 55% and at 20 m.p.h. survival chances are at 95%.

As a result, trial 20 m.p.h. zones have been introduced in the U.K. which resulted in a 9.3 m.p.h. average reduction in average car speed, 60% drop in road casualties and 70% drop in child pedestrian casualties (ref: Webster & Mackie Review of Traffic Calming Schemes in 20 m.p.h. Zones 1996, TRL Report 215, TRL, Crowthorne UK).

Recommendations:

1.Slower speed limits on designated Safe Routes to School,

2.Footpath provision between housing areas and school,

3.Speed cushions and other traffic calming measures where appropriate,

4.Pedestrian lights to assist in safe crossing of the road,

5.Flashing lights at the approaches to schools at opening and closing times.

Walking to and from School

Walking is both healthy exercise and reduces congestion by cars giving lifts to pupils generally during the morning rush hour. Much work is needed to improve the safety of walking routes to and from school.

Recommendations:

1.Road safety demonstrations by school authorities are needed for pupils and parents to encourage walking,

2.Priority ought to be given to pupils who walk to and from school if overnight storage space for school books is in short supply on the school premises,

3.Consideration should be given to a Walking Certificate Scheme to ensure pupils follow a comprehensive safety code when walking to and from school.

4.The Department of Education & Science should consider issuing guidelines to parents to include a suggested check list of weatherproof clothing as well as information on how to organise a ‘walking bus’, i.e. where a number of children are led in an orderly fashion by an adult at the beginning and the end of the line,

5.Schools may need assistance to improve drying facilities for rainwear so that it is ready to be used for the journey home.

Cycling to and from School

Ivan Illich, the great educationalist, claimed that a cyclist outstrips the efficiency of not only all other machines, but of all other animals - as well as enjoying valuable exercise. He also claimed a cyclist can go three or four times faster than a pedestrian but uses five times less energy in the process.

A Galway Cycling Survey at the Young Scientist Exhibition in 1999 was carried out by Transition Year students Brian O’Connell, John Boylan and Owen Coyle. The study questioned people attending 2nd and 3rd level institutions in the city. Almost all had a bicycle but 85% had never cycled to school or college yet 75% said they would cycle if measures to ensure greater cyclist safety were in place. Although it is illegal many parents and teachers tolerate the use of footpaths for pupils cycling to and from school in the belief that a possible collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian is less likely to be fatal than between a cyclist and a motor vehicle on the road.

Recommendations:

1.Cycle routes need to be planned and constructed in consultation with local school authorities,

2.Priority for using overnight storage space at school to be given to cyclists for books not required at home,

3.Secure lock-up facilities for bicycles on school premises sheltered from rain,

4.A Cycling Certificate Scheme should be considered to ensure pupils follow a comprehensive safety code while cycling.

5.Regulations should be considered to require that all bicycles sold be fitted with reliable dynamo or battery powered lighting, front and rear. The requirement for bicycles to be properly lit at night should then be more rigorously enforced.

Travelling to and from School by Private Bus/Car

Dependence by pupils on lifts is part of a growing trend which is self perpetuating. The more cars that are on the road during school time, the less safe it feels for parents who in turn will not allow pupils to walk or cycle to school. As a result more lifts are arranged.

Recommendations:

1.Communities living on large housing estates at some distance from the local school should organise a minibus or coach to avoid car congestion at schoolgates,

2.Introduction and enforcement of no parking zones in the immediate vicinity of school gates ought to be applied more widely,

3.Properly marked ‘set-down’ areas near school gates are needed to improve safety and avoid congestion.

Bus Éireann Standard Public Service to and from School

Behaviour:

Bus Éireann Guidelines for Dealing with Alleged Misbehaviour on School Transport may need to be extended to cover public Bus Éireann services and congregation of pupils at bus depots. For example, 1,400 students converge on Drogheda Bus Depot twice a day to congregate for up to 15 or 20 minutes with no obvious supervision.

Recommendation:

1.Supervision and behavioural guidelines needed at bus depots where pupils are awaiting buses to go home or go to school.

Bus Shelters:

Absence of bus shelters, particularly in rural areas, results in pupils awaiting in the rain and arriving wet into school.

Recommendation:

1.Grant assistance from the School Transport Section of the Department of Education & Science for bus shelter construction should be considered where the private advertising company currently providing these structures is unable to justify construction in any location on commercial bases.

Punctuality:

Variations in arrival time require pupils to wait in all weathers for a bus longer than is necessary.

Recommendation:

1.Timetables need to be revised if traffic or other delays affect journey times and each bus stop should display the current operating timetable.

Bus Átha Cliath Service to and from School

Behaviour:

A number of pupils in the Dublin area have complained of incidents where they feel discriminated against when a bus either does not stop at their bus stop, or where it does, adults are admitted first even though the adults arrive after the school going passengers.

Recommendation:

1.Bus Átha Cliath representatives should consider more regular visits to schools to hear feedback on the service and to discuss company policy and how they require their customers to behave.

Bus Shelters:

Absence of bus shelters, particularly in rural areas, results in pupils awaiting in the rain and arriving wet into school.

Recommendation:

1.Grant assistance from the School Transport Section of the Department of Education & Science for bus shelter construction should be considered where the private advertising company currently providing these structures is unable to justify construction in any location on commercial bases.

Punctuality:

Variations in arrival time require pupils to wait in all weathers for a bus longer than is necessary.

Recommendation:

1.Timetables need to be revised if traffic or other delays affect journey times and each bus stop should display the current operating timetable.

Iarnród Éireann Service to and from School

Relatively few pupils rely on the railway service as a means of school transport. Apart from third level students seeking additional trains and greater capacity at peak times, general satisfaction was expressed by pupils and school authorities with Iarnród Éireann.

Recommendation:

1.Accessibility for wheelchair users may ensure some pupils not able to avail of Iarnród Éireann services could use this form of public transport to and from school.

Interdepartmental Co-Operation is Required For an Efficient School Transport Service

A: Department of Education & Science:

This Department ought to continue as the main authority with responsibility for school transport. However, the traditional role of the Department which has been confined to the School Transport Scheme needs to be widened to include issues of safety and accessibility for all pupils. This wider remit requires close co-operation between the Department and the Department of the Environment & Local Government, the Department of Public Enterprise and the Department of Health & Children.

Recommendation:

1.Greater effort is needed to inform parents of pupils living a relatively short distance from school about safe options for pupils to walk or cycle.

B: Department of the Environment & Local Government:

As this Department has responsibility for road, path and cycleway infrastructure in the country, its contribution in establishing Safe Routes to School is crucial.

Recommendation:

1.Cycle routes to date are designed with commuters in mind. There is a need to include the needs of school students and staff in the development of cycle routes and these needs may also overlap with the needs of tourists.

2.The hard shoulder on main roads needs to be maintained in a smooth condition to encourage cyclists to keep out of the way of traffic.

C: Department of Public Enterprise:

As the Department with responsibility for the three C.I.E. companies, Bus Éireann, Bus Átha Cliath and Iarnród Éireann, the co-operation of the Department of Public Enterprise is needed if the vast majority of pupils are to travel in safety to and from school each day.

Recommendation:

1.The policy of the Department in relation to cutting staff numbers in the public train and bus companies must be balanced against the need to ensure supervision of school going children using these services. Reports from Cheshire in England claim that lack of supervision on school buses is the cause of difficulties in filling job vacancies for school bus drivers.

Concluding Remarks

The school transport service to date has been developed with little reference to the more general transport needs of the local community. School buses are used for a short time every day and during the school year resulting in high unit costs.

The Committee feels that school transport should not be seen as a stand-alone scheme.

The dedicated school bus should be phased out with the objective of providing a quality service to both rural and urban dwellers alike. Other services should be provided by a school bus, which may also include services that run in tandem with the school route, for example scheduled services in rural areas.

A community transport service in rural areas could provide a range of services to meet the needs of local communities.

The flexibility required for such services will require a liberalisation of public transport in Ireland within a properly regulated marketplace.

Alongside this initial task of making the school transport service more efficient and effective for the whole community lies the task of encouraging as many pupils as are able to make their way to and from school safely and independently.

The Committee feels that investment is required in our current school bus fleet to improve the level of safety for pupils using this service.

To whom it may concern, we recommend the report and its recommendations for your consideration and response.

*Michael D. Higgins appointed in substitution for Brian O’Shea on 24/02/99