asked the Minister for Education the percentage of the total annual expenditure on education at all levels spent on the free school transport scheme in respect of the years 1977—82, inclusive.

The percentages are as follows: 1977, 3.85; 1978, 3.88; 1979, 3.72; 1980, 3.77; 1981, 3.60; 1982, 3.46.

Would the Minister accept that the proposed saving this year of £5 million when taken as a percentage of the total represents a savage imposition on primary education?

I would say it is an imposition on some parents but there was not very much by way of alternative so far as the Minister was concerned having regard to the shortfall in the amount of capital that has been mentioned by the Deputy. The entire school transport scheme is under constant review but I cannot offer the Deputy anything further in that regard.

The saving represents only one-sixth of the total of £3,500,000. Is this not a savage attack on primary education, that level of education which, constitutionally, is supposed to be free?

Hear, hear.

The Chair considers the question to be statistical.

On a point of order, my question is based on figures that have been given but I would be very reluctant to accept that it is not entitled to treatment here on the basis of its being a statistical question.

The Deputy will appreciate that the Chair is not infallible but I must make decisions.

I am treating of one figure as a fraction of another and in those circumstances it is not in accordance with precedent to rule that I am embarking on statistics. Is the Minister prepared to accept that there were other areas in which savings, if required, might more appropriately have been made?

I think the wisdom of the Chair's decision has now emerged. This question was answered by the junior Minister as the person having responsibility in the area of school transport. The Deputy asks another question now which would appear to cover the whole field of education, some of which is in the charge of the Minister for Education.

While I accept that, I would ask the Chair to reflect on a situation in which I, while on the other side of the House, was defending school transport but when there was not extended to me either the sympathy or the sensitivity which the Chair is asking for now in respect of supplementaries of a kind that came from himself and from other people while on these benches.

While the Chair is an inanimate object, I would point out that this particular occupant was not in the Chair at the time the Deputy is referring to.

Regarding the Deputy's reference to a savage imposition, I am not prepared to accept that the cuts are savage. However, any imposition is bound to create some hardship especially for people in the lower income groups.

Will the Minister accept——

This must be the final supplementary.

——that some children will not now be able to attend school, despite the compulsory requirement on them to do so?

I cannot accept that. I have no evidence of that and if the Deputy would supply me with evidence, I would be prepared to have it looked at.

I would be glad to do so. I offered to do so last week.

Is the Deputy talking about primary education?

I am talking about children who must compulsorily attend school and cannot now do so because of the prohibitive transport charges.

Does the Minister think it appropriate that the instruction sent by his Department for bus inspectors to board buses to talk to, intimidate and frighten children——

That has nothing to do with the question. I am calling Question No. 18.

May I reply?

No, you may not.

It is a disgrace that children should be intimidated in this way.