Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Oct 1945

Vol. 98 No. 5

Private Deputies' Business. - National Free Milk Scheme Grant—Motion.

I move the motion standing in the names of Deputy Anthony and myself:

That the Dáil is of opinion that, owing to the increase in the price of milk, the National Free Milk Scheme grant of £90,000 to local authorities is inadequate to meet the demands of the various voluntary committees carrying out the distribution of the milk, and that an increase in this grant should be made to cover present demands.

This motion has been on the Order Paper for nearly 12 months. It was put down immediately after an increase in the price of milk had been given to the producers, an increase which they richly deserved. However, my point is this: that we have in Dublin, as you have in many parts of the country, voluntary organisations working this scheme for the Government and for the local authorities. In Dublin we have the Infant Aid Society, who have upwards of 400 voluntary visitors, and with an exceptionally good ladies' committee, representing all classes. Now, Dublin's share of this national grant of £90,000 is £30,000, and it has been the same sum of £30,000 for the last five or six years, although the price of milk has been increased on at least two occasions, and, I think, on three occasions. What has happened in the case of the local authorities is that as the price of milk went up, the way the local authorities met that increased price, since the Government would not increase the grant, was to reduce the quantity of milk ordered for the benefit of the delicate children of necessitous parents. One would have thought that, when an increase in price was agreed to by the Government, those public and charitable bodies that were receiving grants to carry out their work would get an increase in these grants to enable them to meet the demands made upon them. Instead of that, what they have done is that they have taken the milk away from the babies of necessitous parents. Now, this was a special type of high-grade milk, tuberculin-tested, and was of great benefit to the children of Dublin, and I, as well as others, asked here in the Dáil for an increase in the grant.

I have before me a report of the Infant Aid Society, who complain that their activities have been seriously curtailed as a result of this. The report says:

"The annual grant of £30,000 allocated by the Local Government Department under the National Free Milk Scheme was regarded some years ago as adequate and even generous, but now, owing to the rise in the price of milk and the increase of unemployment with its consequent increase in applicants for free milk, the society finds it hard to meet the demands made upon its resources. At the present time a much greater supply of milk is required to off-set the shortage in other foodstuffs."

Now, I remember being at a meeting at which a very eminent member of the Parliamentary Secretary's profession—I think it was Dr. Shanley— spoke. Everybody in this House has a great regard for his opinion, and he said at that time that malnutrition and starvation were widespread in this city. When a man of his standard and type speaks in that way at a meeting of the Infant Aid Society, when these proposals were being considered, I think that his remarks and his opinion are worthy of very special note. Another paragraph of the report says:—

"The most important activity of the Society is the daily distribution of milk. During the past 12 months 2,172,384 pints were distributed for the benefit of children under five years of age whose parents were unable from their resources to provide them with a sufficient amount. The milk supplied was produced from tuberculin-tested herds, the property of 13 contractors."

Now, Dublin City has 27 depots, and we are hoping, in the very near future, to open at least three more—one of them in connection with our big Dublin Corporation housing scheme. In fact, I think that three of them will be in the new Corporation housing scheme. That would mean that, because of lack of funds, the milk would have to be distributed over a greater area, and will mean that some necessitous parents' children, whom the voluntary inspectors thought worthy of recommending, will be deprived of the milk. Another paragraph from the report goes on to say:

"It is only by visiting the poorer homes that any adequate idea can be gained of the distress and poverty that abound, and the hardships and suffering borne by the people, as revealed in recent reports of the Voluntary Visitors, make sad reading."

I shall not attempt to enlarge on the official statements in the annual report of the Infant Aid Society and of other societies that are doing this great work. You have the Catholic Social Services Guild, the St. John Ambulance Brigade Feeding Centres, and so on, all doing magnificent work, but I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the point I have made: that to permit an increase in the price of milk, and pay for it by a reduction in the amount of milk consumed by the children, was very false economy and, perhaps I might be permitted to say, very bad management. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this whole matter and to agree that £30,000 out of the total grant is insufficient for Dublin in view of the present circumstances. I am supported, as I have already said, by this very fine committee of ladies in Dublin, who are giving all their services free of charge, and I am sure that in order to make a success of this great scheme we will have the blessing and good will of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sorry that Deputy Anthony is not here. He was to have seconded the motion, and I understand that he had some special figures to put forward to the House. I am sure, however, that the motion will not fall through for want of a seconder.

I beg to second the motion.

I should like to support the motion in general terms. If it were possible to induce the Parliamentary Secretary to give an increase in the present grant, it would be a very good thing, but, as I said before, in connection with all such matters, the only approach to a question of this character is along the lines that we have advocated from these benches time after time, and that is to put the father of the family in a position where he can buy these things for his children. It is the same in the case of the distribution of free boots as in the case of the distribution of free milk, and so on, and until we reach that stage, the result of most of these motions will be just a palliative, and only a palliative. However, on the merits of the motion itself, I can imagine the Parliamentary Secretary saying that Dublin is not faring too badly in connection with this particular grant, seeing that Dublin is getting one-third of the grant, while the population of Dublin is one-sixth of the whole, but I would remind him that the grant has been in existence for a considerable number of years and that, in the intervening years, the price of milk had advanced, and that advancement in price has had a very adverse effect on the number of children that can be dealt with. I think that that is obvious, seeing that there was only a fixed sum available so far as this committee was concerned.

I understand that about two years ago the number of children dealt with was about 6,000, but to-day the number is about 4,000, owing to the fact that the committee is prevented from extending the scheme to deserving cases, and for that reason they appeal to the good feelings of the Minister to increase the grant. In some cases the committee went a little outside the ordinary regulations, and gave milk to some families that they wished to assist, but, as they had to cut their cloth according to measure, they were restricted in the number of deserving cases they could deal with. I join in the appeal made for an increase of the grant, as the money could be put to good use as far as the Infant Aid Society in Dublin is concerned.

I desire to support the motion. The whole problem of dietetics, and the nutrition of our people is very important. I do not think we have given it sufficient study. However, from some indications, I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken a deep interest in the subject in recent months. Milk contains very essential vitamins. It is a big problem as far as a large percentage of children of poorer people are concerned, inasmuch as they are not provided with essential proteins and vitamins. As Deputy Byrne pointed out, owing to the increased cost of milk, the quantity available to them has fallen. I do not know what the average consumption of milk represents, but, taking into account that we are an agricultural country, and that a big percentage of the people live on the land, the difficulty scarcely exists in rural Ireland. In the bigger urban areas, and in the City of Dublin, however, there is no doubt whatever that there is a problem. But it should be comparatively easy of solution.

I know a little about what is being done in Great Britain regarding the milk problem. Of course it is infinitely greater there than here, because of industrialisation and the volume of population living in urban areas. In Great Britain the consumption of milk averaged about half-a-pint per individual, and the policy of the public health departments was to raise the amount to something like one pint per individual per day. That is not a big amount when it is considered that an infant requires two pints daily. I am satisfied that a big percentage of the poorer people and children in slum districts, as well as in poorer quarters of our urban areas, are not getting anything like sufficient milk to effect a balanced diet.

I realise also that the world population generally is not getting a proper standard of diet. It has been comparatively easy to supply calories, because carbohydrate foods have been in abundant supply in the past. At a convention held immediately before the end of the war, at which 44 nations were represented, it was decided that the aim should be to provide a proper dietary standard for the people of the world. I take it that that meant a proper balanced dietary that would include the necessary proteins and vitamins. The problem is not peculiar to this country, because the world food supply is far short of the necessary vitamins. The position would appear to be easier as far as calories are concerned.

This motion raises a very interesting question, even in our condition here, with the facilities we have to produce the more important high-value foods to effect a balanced dietary. The situation here appears to be an extraordinary one, as a substantial percentage of people live on a dietary which is not balanced, that lacks essential vitamins and proteins. Of course, the ideal thing to aim at is what Deputy O'Sullivan suggested, that parents should be provided with means to purchase necessaries which will ensure a healthy family existence. The Parliamentary Secretary, being a medical man, knows better than anyone in the House that dietary lacking in essential vitamins is responsible for a great deal of disease, especially amongst children, so that even from the State point of view what the motion suggests would help to provide a healthy and virile race, and, in the long run, would save expenditure on institutional treatment. It is certainly not false economy to provide a substantial sum, which would ensure that people not in a position to secure the necessary vitamins and proteins could be helped to do so by State assistance of that kind. I am pleased to add my support to the motion.

I wish to associate myself with the motion. I believe that a supply of milk is necessary for children. Half a pint of free milk is not sufficient where there are four or five children concerned, while the price of additional milk is 3½d. a pint. The majority of members here are also members of public bodies, and, when making an estimate for these things locally, they should not be quibbling as regards the cost. We who are members of public boards know what happens when an estimate is put before one of these bodies. There is an outcry about the rates. The question is asked: "Where will the money come from?" That question is put by persons who urge that all these things should be done.

The only way to get them done is by members of the local bodies voting additional money. Nothing will be got from the Government; it is from the ratepayers everything comes. I see people going out in the cities and towns for half a pint of milk and being charged at the rate of 3½d. per pint. How can the farm labourer provide milk for his family on a wage of £1 19s. 6d. a week? What good is half a pint of milk to a man on home assistance? What can a man on unemployment assistance provide for his family? The man on unemployment assistance in my town can receive no more than 14/- a week and a few vouchers. How much milk can he provide for his family? The position is much the same in the case of a man in the city on unemployment assistance.

We talk about the nourishment of poor children but they are getting no nourishment. Even if a man is employed, it is impossible, owing to the cost of living, for him to provide adequate nourishment for his family. Some members of public bodies use the argument that poor families are in receipt of family allowances. Too much is made of these family allowances. We are facing a cold winter. What will these people get? A cwt. of wet turf, with a half-pint of milk. So far as the poor people are concerned, the social services are all wrong. If the emergency had continued for a further five years, money would be found for an army, no matter where it would come from. But now we have no money for such purposes as this. If we want to provide extra milk, we should provide the money. The money will have to be got if we are to keep our people alive. Coming along the streets to-day, I saw compressors at work tearing down shelters. Money could be found for air-raid shelters and money should be found for working-class and poor people now, especially for the young people who will be on these benches when present Parties will have disappeared.

If you want a good nation, the nation must be fed, but to-day we have people queueing up for vouchers. It would be far better if they were assured of decent wages. It would be better if the worker were given a wage on which he could bring up his family in proper comfort than to have this system of vouchers and free milk which the workers do not want at all. What is wanted in this country, and every other country, is work for decent wages. Now that the war is over, we are back where we were. There is nothing facing the country but unemployment. Great Britain and the Six Counties threaten to send home our men. I hope the reply of our Government will be that they will provide work at decent wages for those men when they come back. If they do that, they will be only doing their duty.

When an estimate for social services comes up at the local boards neither the Farmers' Party nor the Fianna Fáil Party nor any other Party should be quibbling. If we are to do the things which should be done, we should provide the money. We are all ratepayers and we shall all have to pay our share and make a sacrifice for those who are in need.

We may not be out of the wood yet so far as the war is concerned. Things are not too safe and we may have to fall back again on shelters. If we have to do so, the necessary money will be found. We are sending shiploads of food all over the world. We are bringing over children from other countries while we have in our own country hundreds of thousands of children who are not too well off. In every town and city you will see barefooted children. You will see fathers of poor children at O'Connell Bridge and every side street looking for coppers. We have been told about the scarcity of labour during the past five years, while, at the same time, there are 40,000 or 50,000 unemployed. I happened to be in the United Kingdom Office last week. I had to wait there two hours to get a visa for a refugee to go back. The people were coming there in hundreds and were being treated not too nicely at all. When they go inside, the porter says: "What do you want?" The answer is: "I have come about my passport." The next question is: "What did you come home for?"

Not for milk.

When they go to the Permit Office they are told to sit down, fill in a form and wait until they are called. A person might be seated there until 4 o'clock in the evening and be told then that he has to come back again at 8 o'clock in the morning. That is what is happening in this country, day in day out. I heard a Deputy speak here to-day about the conditions under which cattle are carried on trains. Why, cattle are treated a lot better than some of our people going over to try to earn the wherewithal to buy new milk and bread and butter for those left at home are treated at Dun Laoghaire.

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is a fair minded man and being a doctor he knows what our youngsters need. He will agree with me, I am sure, when I say that local authorities must provide a certain amount of money to finance social services. I should like him to increase the grant for milk so that every child would get a half pint or a pint of milk no matter what the cost may be. If we are to have a healthy race, healthy families and prevent the spread of T.B., ample supplies of new milk are necessary.

Some few years ago the Department's regulations had the effect of putting people who could supply milk to poor families in rural areas out of business. These regulations created monopolies for the big dairy men so that they could increase their prices. That happened all over the country. If there was not water at the cow's head, the veterinary surgeon went out and closed down the dairy. He told these people they could not sell milk unless they complied with the regulations. Probably the man whose dairy was closed was the only man in that area who could supply half a pint of milk to poor people in the immediate vicinity. Now because there is no registered dairy in the area, the poor person cannot get half a pint of milk although he is entitled to it under the scheme. These regulations have put people who were producing plenty of milk on all the small farms out of business. At one time a person could buy a pint of milk anywhere. To-day, owing to the regulations enforced, they have been driven out of business and the men who can rear 40 or 50 cows and have fine cowhouses have a monopoly of the business. Signs on it, the price of milk has gone up. Monopolies have been created, not for the betterment of the country but for the betterment of a certain clique, who are reaping the benefit of these regulations by charging what they like to the poor of the country. I do not know whether I would be in order in referring to turf which also comes under the heading of social services.

We are not dealing with social services.

He wants to heat the milk.

They cannot heat the milk with wet turf.

The Deputy may not refer to anything but milk.

They cannot heat the milk with wet turf. Certain people in my area started bottling dairies but when the emergency came along the bottling part was forgotten and they had to go back to the old churn again. They were then no better than the men whom they had put out of business. Their excuse was that they could not get bottles. That is the game that is going on and that is why poor people in rural districts, in the midst of full and plenty, have to pay 3½d. a pint for milk. I know that in the city, of course, a fairly high price has to be charged owing to the cost of transport, but in the heart of the country where the cows are on grass all the summer, the people have been charged that price. I know that the Farmers' Party may not approve of these remarks because they are advocating a better price for milk but if they succeed in getting it, who suffers? The man with small wages, the man who is not able to pay. He will have to do with less milk for his children.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he is reconsidering the milk scheme to make an adequate allowance of milk for every child and not to be content with an allowance of half a pint for a family. Frequently I have to approach the town clerk or the county manager in my own area on behalf of various people to see that they will get this half-piont of milk, but I think that every family in receipt of home assistance or unemployment assistance should get a pint of milk in respect of each child in the family, even if there were six in family. That would mean a total daily allowance of six pints of milk for such families, but milk is the principal item in their diet and we know that at present they are not able to buy flake meal. At 4/- a stone, none of these people is able to buy flake meal which would be a useful addition to the milk if they could afford it.

If we are going to improve the condition of people in need Ministers will require to be much more generous and social services will have to be administered without any means test. There is supposed to be full and plenty for all in this country but we are being criticised by certain people who say: "What are you doing with the Government? You are letting the Government send food out of the country while thousands are starving."

That is a separate question.

Why not have it debated?

We are not sending out milk.

The question relates to milk and the Deputy will confine himself to that and to the grant therefor.

One cannot live on milk alone.

The Deputy will confine himself to milk and that alone.

I suppose I shall have to. I appeal now to the Minister to give a pint of milk to every child whose father is on home assistance or in receipt of unemployment assistance. That is not too much to expect. If he does that, it will not be necessary for members of local authorities to go to their home assistance officer or to the county manager with the appeal "Such a man is in a very bad way; will you be able to give him a half-pint or a pint of milk?" That should not be. The resources are there. An unemployed man with a family cannot buy milk at the present price. It is so much eye-wash to have a milk scheme under which we give half-a-pint of milk to a family. As a worker, living in the midst of the poor, I can say that I do not know how they exist having regard to the present price of milk, butter, bread and turf.

The Deputy is on a milk diet now. He is forgetting that.

The price of milk is a scandal. As far as the working class people are concerned, they are not able to buy it out of the miserable wages they have been tied down to by the standstill Orders. We are simply talking about what we are doing and what we are going to do. If we have everything in this country, as we say we have, let us give to the people who are in need. That would be the greatest act of charity that any Minister whose duty it was to look after the needy could do. Let us give it to them for the coming winter because their prospects at the present moment do not appear to be rosy.

I remember, not very long ago, listening to the Parliamentary Secretary replying to a question on this subject. I am very much afraid that his reply to this motion has already been made for him to a large extent. I hope, when he comes to deal with the motion, he will try to regard it, not so much from the administrative point of view, but rather from the point of view of the new rôle that he has taken on of late in this House, that is, his rôle as the man who is mainly responsible in regard to public health matters in this country. I think his attitude on a number of occasions recently in the House would portend not only a more liberal approach to many health problems, especially the problem of tuberculosis, but also that on certain questions he is prepared personally to go a good deal further than he is able to get support for officially. I hope he will approach this problem from that point of view.

Possibly it is true that the answer to the motion can be found locally, but there are many things that one finds in local affairs and the affairs of local authorities that are objectionable in many ways. I think it would be regrettable that on this particular subject, which vitally affects the most perilous years of human life, the Parliamentary Secretary would not find it possible to approach the question from the medical point of view and from the point of view of continuing a very good service which was initiated and broadened out by the Government.

It is very easy for many of us on these benches to criticise the Government in relation to present social conditions and, personally, I feel the Government find it particularly difficult to justify many of the problems that face us to-day, but, on this particular occasion, when we are dealing with the problem of safeguarding and strengthening to some degree the health of children up to the age of five years, we should try to concentrate on the problem itself and to regard it, not merely from the point of view as to whether the main responsibility should be borne by the Central Exchequer or by local authorities but in the light of the new approach to the problem indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary on the occasion when we discussed the Bill dealing with the treatment of tuberculosis.

Although, I am afraid, to some extent a day or two ago in the House he went back on his position as indicated on that occasion, we should not allow his attitude on that occasion to be weakened by general criticism, but we should support it. Now we are asking not for any large or exaggerated expenditure, not for any new feature of social service, but merely asking the Government to keep to the standard in the system of milk distribution which they themselves found necessary some three or four years ago. We should try to find some point of agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to that matter.

It is quite true that possibly the deficiency in volume that has resulted through the increase in the price of milk could be made good locally, but if there are sins of omission on the part of local authorities I do not think that in this particular instance the Parliamentary Secretary, either for the sake of scoring a debating point or for the sake of protecting the Government against the effect of the motion, should take advantage of that. I think he should try to support the motion on the basis that at a particular time the Government found it not only expedient but wise to make a certain grant which allowed the provision of a certain quantity of milk, that that quantity is no longer available for certain reasons, that if that quantity was justifiable some years ago, in present conditions and in the light of the new approach by the Government, and particularly by the Parliamentary Secretary, to such problems, it might be possible to add to the sum now available so as to ensure the distribution of milk on the basis of the free milk scheme in the same volume as formerly applied.

So far as the value of the milk and effect on the children are concerned, do not think anybody in this House has clearer appreciation than the Parliamentary Secretary. It is quite clear that, at least in large cities, particularly Dublin, the 2,000,000 pints of milk distributed under this scheme are of tremendous benefit to infants up to the age of five years. The only regrettable feature is that it cannot be continued beyond that age and on a larger scale and that its application cannot be extended to bring in a greater number of children without the application of this form of means test. But these are features of a broader problem, the problem of the general approach to tuberculosis, the lack of adequate and proper food amongst the population generally, and I do think, on the narrow question we are debating to-night, the Parliamentary Secretary, as he has done on a previous occasion, should take his courage in his hand and, if not able publicly to accept the motion, should at least personally undertake in his official capacity to press with considerable force the point of view that has been expressed here to-night, namely, that, at least in so far as the Government has considerably amplified the scheme and made available more money, they should continue to maintain the standard that they set up some years ago by allowing an increased allocation which would allow the provision of milk in the volume previously obtaining. The actual amount involved is not very great and, at a period when we are on the verge of a very considerable saving in so far as expenditure on defence measures is concerned, the amount required would be infinitesimal as against the beneficial results that would flow from adding, again, at least in the City of Dublin, to the 4,000 children who at present receive this milk the other 2,000 who unfortunately had to be deprived of it as a result of the increase in cost.

I would urge on this point that the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary made on a previous occasion might be passed by and that he should try to approach this problem with the same attitude that he took up when introducing the Sanatorium Bill and spoke at some length on the general problem of tuberculosis in this country.

As the seconder of Deputy Byrne's motion, I associate myself very fully with it. I should like to join with the other Deputies in appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter his most sympathetic consideration. As Deputy Byrne has very ably pointed out, it chiefly concerns a section of our people with whom we have very much sympathy, namely, the poorer classes. Deputy Byrne and Deputy O'Sullivan have explained the situation with regard to the conditions prevailing in the City of Dublin. Similar conditions exist in other districts in the country, especially in the big towns. I am sure that the taxpayers, who, we are aware, are very heavily burdened at the moment, would be the very last people to oppose a substantial increase in the grant for this most deserving scheme. Everyone is aware that milk is very essential, especially to young children. In many homes throughout the country, especially in the large towns, this milk scheme has certainly been of very great help. I would be pleased to see it continued in the future and, as Deputy Byrne has pointed out, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will give the matter his most sympathetic consideration, as he realises the great importance of the scheme. Milk is very necessary so that our children may be brought up as good healthy citizens. Therefore, I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to hold out some hope of a substantial increase in this grant in the future.

I feel that I am intruding somewhat, but I am one of the few producers of milk who spoke on this question. I certainly would not like to see our children deprived of any milk, but not very long ago when this Party put forward a motion asking for 1/- a gallon for milk in the summer time and 1/3 in the winter, most Deputies voted against it. I wonder what was in their minds? It is no wonder that milk is getting scarce. There is a very big difference between the unfortunate producers who are sending milk to the creameries with a view to supplying butter for the people and those who produce milk for sale in the towns and cities. I could never understand the mentality of those who voted against that motion.

The Deputy's Party had a motion before this House; that motion was, I believe, voted upon and decided and it cannot be reopened now.

I am speaking on the production of milk.

I understood the Deputy to be referring to a motion which had been before the House previously. I must not have heard properly.

Where is the city dairyman who supplies milk to the cities under this scheme to get the milk except from the farmers? When these men are not able to keep up the supply, they come to the creameries for it. The production of milk has declined and it is no wonder that that should be so. The two great laws of logic are cause and effect and I was dealing with the cause. My teeth water, so to speak, when I hear of the wonderful price the Dublin dairyman gets. Of course, he has bigger expenses than we have in delivering the milk, etc.; but we would be very glad to get a little more for our milk. If we had been given the price we asked for two years ago, there would not be the decline in production which we have at present. We cannot keep cows and supply milk at 10½d. per gallon in the summer and 1/- per gallon in the winter. You will not get an adequate supply of milk until you increase the price. The supply of butter will also be short until you pay the farmer adequately for his work. It is a case of: "To hell with the farmer."

It is pleasant to find—it is a rather common experience with me—that all Parties in the House are anxious that more money should be spent. That is encouraging. But if we are to spend more money on every aspect of the social life of our people we have to get the money somewhere. When we look for the money, whether it be in the form of rates or in the form of taxation, we do not get the same enthusiastic support from all Parties in this House. Deputies tell me that they are all behind me and that they are all for spending unlimited money on supplying poor children with milk. Similarly, they are all behind me in spending unlimited money on trying to stamp out tuberculosis. The same attitude is adopted in this House in relation to every aspect of social life that is discussed here.

I do not think there is anybody in this House who would be happier than I if I could be assured that every child in Ireland had an adequate supply of the most wholesome food that a child could be supplied with, that is, milk. We should all be happy if we could reach that position. The question to which we have to address ourselves is: "How is it to be done?" The motion says that, owing to the increased price, the grant of £90,000 per annum for the provision of free milk is inadequate. Very probably it is. It was never intended that the State, by way of free grants, should provide an adequate supply of free milk to all the necessitous children in this country. Deputies who are disposed to criticise the adequacy of £90,000 per year out of central taxation for this purpose will at least remember that, before this Government came into office, no money was provided for this purpose—not a penny. I do not want to labour that.

We expect progress, of course.

Well, you have got it.

It is a natural thing to expect.

If the grant of £90,000 a year is not adequate for its purpose, it seems to me that the local authority has not only the right but the duty to supplement that grant and to see that necessitous children get an adequate supply of milk.

As I said at the outset, when it comes to supplying any commodity out of public funds the financial burden must be borne either by way of central taxation or by rates. The local authority cannot supply milk or anything else free, unless it raises the necessary money by way of rate. On more than one occasion, I have advanced in this House the thesis that the financing of such schemes by way of rate is a sounder social policy than such financing by way of central taxation. The taxpayer will pay in accordance with his consumption of the goods that are taxed and in accordance with his income: the ratepayer will pay the money in accordance with the valuation of his actual property.

Which is no indication of his capacity to pay.

Deputy Hughes made a speech: I am making one now. If a commodity in general consumption has to be taxed—whether it be tea, sugar, beer, tobacco or something else—the poor man will pay at least as much as the richest man in the land, if the money is raised in that way. If the choice were given to the lower-incomed class to-morrow, as to whether there should be a reduction in the price of tobacco or an increase in the rate for the provision of some more milk, I believe they would say they would rather have cheaper tobacco. However, we can afford to leave that point over. The man of £100 valuation will pay 20 times as much by way of rate as the man with £5 valuation. Surely, it is more equitable and more in the interests of the poor that, if we have to raise money for these purposes, we should raise it by way of rate rather than by way of taxation? Deputies may say we should save it on the Army or save it on this, that or the other. I reply that, if we can reduce taxation, the argument still holds—the relief should go to the classes of the community most in need of it.

Apart from these considerations, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the central authority in this State is already contributing very substantially towards maintaining nutritional standards in this country. The general question of nutrition has been mentioned here and it has been stated, in the course of this debate, that there is a substantial number of people actually suffering from starvation in this country. I want to say quite definitely that I do not believe it. If it is true, it ought not to be the case. Nobody in this country should be starving, or even hungry, and if there are people without sufficient food to maintain themselves, then the local authorities are not doing their duty to the extent that the central authority is doing it.

I do not think you, Sir, were here when these matters were raised. Strictly speaking, I do not think they are in order at all. The general question has been raised of the present nutritional state of our people and what the Government may have done towards relieving it. A charge has been made and, with your permission, A Chinn Comhairle, I have to direct the attention of the House to certain facts regarding what the Government has done to ensure that, not only would the people be supplied with the necessaries of life by way of food, but that the food would be available to them. Under the heading of food subsidies, the estimated expenditure in the coming year is £3,070,000.

Does that include the local authorities' contribution?

No, it is food subsidies. Again, in order that another section of the community may be induced to provide the food that is necessary, if we are to avoid the starvation or the malnutrition to which Deputies have referred, we have agricultural produce subsidies, mainly to the dairying industry, in which Deputy Hughes is interested. In order that farmers may be induced to produce milk for conversion, in the main, into butter—that being more profitable—£825,000 is being provided in the current year. In food vouchers, £582,000 is provided; in recoupment to local authorities under the heading of food allowances, £170,000 is provided.

Deputies have suggested that we should enable people in the lower-incomed groups to purchase food. I suggest that the £2,230,000 we are providing by way of children's allowances in the current year enables children to secure food they would not otherwise secure, as their parents would not have the wherewithal to purchase it.

Unemployment was mentioned, I think, by the mover of the motion, as a contributing factor to the undernourished state of the children of Dublin. Undoubtedly, we have unemployment. Nothing in this motion will remedy that, but again I would mention that we are providing in the current year £1,020,000 by way of unemployment assistance. It is not enough —every Deputy in the Opposition Benches will tell me it is not enough —but it is £1,020,000 more than any previous Government ever provided, and I think we are entitled to some credit for that. Then there are supplemental allowances, school meals, and allowances under the heading of supplementary payments to certain beneficiaries under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act. We get a grand total of £8,429,602, which is being provided by the State, by the Government, in order to maintain the nutritional status of our people.

It is interesting to note that under these same headings the expenditure in 1931-32 was £14,838 10s. 0d. I think, in the light of these figures, Deputies ought not to direct a complaint to the Government as to its efforts towards maintaining our people, and particularly the classes with lower incomes.

Nor is the entire milk distribution represented by the free milk grant. The Government is providing milk under various other schemes as well as through the instrumentality of the free milk grant. In the City of Dublin, during the year 1943-44, 1,000,000 gallons of milk were provided under the food voucher scheme at a cost of £112,500; under the school meals scheme 250,000 gallons were provided at a cost of £29,166; under the maternity and child welfare scheme 4,079 gallons were provided at an expenditure of £410 and under the free milk scheme 227,588 gallons were provided at a cost of £30,497, making a grand total, in relation to free milk distribution in the City of Dublin out of funds provided by the Government—excepting 50 per cent. under the maternity and child welfare scheme and the school meals scheme, which were only small amounts —of 1,481,667 gallons at a cost of £172,573. Under these various headings, taking the State as a whole, the amount of milk distributed throughout the State in 1943/44 was 2,859,291 gallons at a cost of £313,457. It is not merely a matter of the £90,000 grant for the provision of free milk; it becomes a matter of £313,457, in the year 1943/44, out of central taxation for the purpose of providing milk alone. It may not be enough, but if it is not enough, I think it must become the responsibility of the local authority to make up any deficiency that may be there.

Some Deputies have mentioned—and Deputy Larkin, in particular, emphasised it—that the goal to be aimed at ought to be the organisation of a social order within which our people would be able to make the necessary provision for themselves and their dependents. That is the goal at which we should all aim; that is the condition of society we should like to see obtaining here, but it is a very difficult social order at which to arrive. I hope we shall live to reach it, but we shall certainly have a long distance to travel. In the light of the facts that I have put before the House, I hope Deputies will not hesitate to reject the motion. It is not that we have not sympathy with it—that is not the point. We all have sympathy with any proposal that would provide milk for children who require it, but it cannot be done through the instrumentality of this motion. It can be done by the local authorities themselves and, in so far as it rests with me, I am quite prepared to give the fullest encouragement to any and every local authority that will undertake additional expenditure under this heading.

I think we can say that members of the Labour Party have been, on more than one occasion, responsible for the view that the Parliamentary Secretary expressed to-night, and that is, that the remedy for the situation which gives rise to motions of this kind is to be obtained by endeavouring to put the parents and the children in such a position that they can do without such schemes. One watching the whole gamut of events in this country in recent years is inclined to deplore the tendency in this direction and everybody who desires progress and self-respect among the people of the country would like to see the necessity for this obviated and a suitable alternative provided.

I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary, when discussing this matter this evening, did not appear to be as optimistic as he used to be on former occasions. I am sorry to note that he does not now believe that this idea could be realised. I hope it is a temporary lapse on his part and that he will return to his old allegiance and the allegiance of his Party in this connection. If one could discriminate at all between services of this kind, one would be inclined to favour this particular service as the best of its kind until some suitable alternative is provided. I feel, as a member of a local authority, that if the onus is put on local authorities to provide some additional contributions and to operate services of this kind as sympathetically and as broadly as possible, the local authorities, generally speaking, will not be behind in doing their part.

I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to send a questionnaire to the local authorities or to provide some opportunity where this matter could be raised at the earliest possible date at meetings of local authorities. In that way the whole subject could be thoroughly examined. So long as we have to have schemes of this kind, I would like to see the basis of this scheme broadened, the stipulation that the scheme is to be confined to children under a certain age removed and a reversion to what I think was the original position, that children up to a much greater age could benefit under the scheme. I would like to see the scheme supported by some general policy in the schools for the purpose of providing milk, even if there has to be a small charge, for all the pupils of the school.

The Parliamentary Secretary has put the onus of doing something further in this connection on the local authorities. I accept that and I think the local authorities will be quite prepared to do their part. I am aware that in counties where the total amount available for supplementing old age pension allowances was exhausted, the local authorities cheerfully came to the rescue and provided a certain amount of money, pending the redemption of a promise made in this House that the local authorities would get 75 per cent. recoupment for every allowance provided in that respect. I do not know whether it is intended that that promise should be fulfilled or not but the local authorities did their duty in that matter in certain counties where the need arose and, I have no doubt, will do their duty in this respect also.

This matter ought to be approached from a broadly humanitarian point of view and it cannot be separated from whatever general policy there is in regard to public health. While deploring the need for schemes of this kind and confidently believing that a situation can, and will ultimately, be realised in this country in which services of this kind may be dispensed with and the natural and proper alternative provided for the bread-winners, the parents of the children, I feel that this is one service which can be singled out as perhaps the best of its kind from the point of view of general health and the easement of the economic difficulties of many families.

In opposing this motion, the Parliamentary Secretary laboured at considerable length his contention that the Government had made very considerable advances in the matter of public services. There is no doubt whatever that great progress has been made in regard to the amount of money provided for social services now as compared with 1930 and 1931, but the Parliamentary Secretary ignored the fact that the world has changed very much since those years. In the last 15 years, we might safely say that more than a century of history has been made, and perhaps many centuries.

The world has changed and I would be quite safe in saying that the social services in this country compared as favourably with those of other countries in 1931 as they compare now. As a matter of fact, I think the social services here compare less favourably with those of other countries now than they did in 1931. If we have made considerable progress, other countries have made still more progress. The world is perhaps becoming a little more enlightened. The old idea that industry and trade and everything else should be assisted by keeping expenditure down, by keeping social services as cheap as possible, has been exploded, and we have universally a new approach to social problems, to economic problems and to the problems of governmental finance.

This proposal does not ask for any increase in the volume of milk provided for the poor when the scheme was initiated. It asks that the amount of milk provided when the scheme was introduced shall be maintained. The amount has had to be reduced because of the increase in the cost of producing milk and the increase in the cost of milk, and if there was a case for a sufficient quantity of milk when the scheme was introduced, there ought to be as good a case to-day at least for maintaining that quantity. Therefore, when the Parliamentary Secretary talks about economic progress, he must admit that, since the scheme was introduced, progress has not been made, that, as a matter of fact, there has been a movement in the opposite direction.

What about all the other provisions made for free milk?

I do not intend to go into all the other governmental schemes.

But in respect of milk alone, under the vouchers schemes and under the school meals scheme?

I know there are some other provisions——

Some other provisions amounting to £313,000 odd.

——but this particular social service catered for a certain type of people, for children particularly, and I think a fair case has been made for maintaining the volume provided when the scheme was introduced.

The Parliamentary Secretary also sought to convince the House that it would be better to finance this scheme of free milk distribution entirely out of local funds. He sought to make the extraordinary case that it would be more equitable if the local ratepayer, instead of the general taxpayer, were to bear the cost. He apparently completely overlooked the fact that there is not, and never has been, any relationship between poor law valuations and the contribution which a local ratepayer has to make and the income of the local ratepayer. These two things have never borne any relationship to one another.

I had better make the case quite clear to the Parliamentary Secretary. Suppose he were engaged in black-marketing operations and had become very wealthy, and that I were a small farmer and that we lived on opposite sides of the same road. The Parliamentary Secretary, as a successful black-marketeer, might have an income of £5,000 or £6,000 a year, while I, as a struggling farmer, might have an income of £100 a year. Assuming that the Parliamentary Secretary was content to live in a moderate-sized detached residence, his rateable valuation might be exactly the same as mine.

Would I pay income-tax?

Now the Parliamentary Secretary gets on to another aspect. The Parliamentary Secretary wants to take the burden of financing free milk distribution off the shoulders of the income-tax payer altogether. He would exempt the income-tax payer from all responsibility for assisting in providing free milk for the poor and would place the entire burden on the shoulders of the struggling and harassed ratepayers. I am entirely in agreement with the principle that people should contribute to the services of the State according to their incomes, and you can only calculate that by finding out their incomes and basing taxation on them, or by finding out what their outlay is and basing taxation on that. When I speak of basing taxation on outlay, I mean basing it on money spent particularly on non-essential luxuries.

I see nothing wrong with the person who smokes heavily, who smokes two or three large packets of cigarettes in the day, when he can get them, making some little contribution towards helping to provide cheap or free milk for the poor. I think it is quite equitable. It is a good principle for the State to tax a man who indulges excessively in luxuries in order to provide for deserving sections certain necessary commodities, and whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may say about the cost of providing adequate supplies of milk for those who need them, there is one thing on which the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me, that is, that for the children of families affected with T.B., children who live in surroundings in which they are very likely to contract the disease, children of delicate parents and children who are themselves delicate, no question of expense should deter the Parliamentary Secretary from providing an absolute sufficiency of milk.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 25th October, 1945.
Top
Share