What is the Title of this Bill?
Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1957—Committee and Final Stages.
The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1957.
Should the title not be the "Public Accounts (Deputy Sheldon) Bill"? Does it not arise out of a point made by Deputy Sheldon at the Public Accounts Committee?
We shall meet Deputy Sheldon's point later.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:
(3) Where any expenditure was incurred before the commencement of this Act by a local authority within the meaning of the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930, in providing free of charge, or meeting the whole or part of the provision free of charge of, meals for children attending a national school, that expenditure and any contribution thereto made out of the Exchequer shall be deemed to be and always to have been valid and proper.
It has been found necessary to introduce an amendment, to be inserted as sub-section (3) of this section, to regularise expenditure in previous years on school meals and I will deal with that matter in due course. As regards sub-sections (1) and (2), the position is that, under the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930, urban district councils, county borough councils and town commissioners are empowered to arrange for the provision of meals for schoolchildren. Section 1 of the 1914 Act empowered the local authorities to provide meals for children attending national schools in their areas, but, except as permitted by Sections 2 and 3, debarred them from incurring any expenses in the purchase of food for the meals.
Section 2 of the Act required them to make a charge for every meal supplied and empowered them to recover the amount involved from parents, except in cases where they were satisfied that the parents could not pay. Section 3 empowered them, subject to the sanction of the Minister, to defray the cost of the food out of the rates in cases where they were satisfied that any of the the children were unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them and that funds other than public funds were not available or were insufficient to defray the cost.
Since the inception of the service, the school meals schemes have been operated by the appropriate local authorities mainly on a non-contributory basis, under Section 3 of the 1914 Act. Arrangements for a general contributory service on the lines envisaged by Sections 1 and 2 of the Act have never been made by the local authorities, but in five areas out of the total of 59, part of the cost of the meals is met either by collection of contributions or by the co-operation of a voluntary body.
Under an amending Act of 1917, provision was made for recoupment from the Exchequer of one-half of the net expenditure on food. This was £164,000, in the year ended 31st March, 1957, towards which the State will contribute £82,000. Administration expenses borne by the local authorities were £9,800.
In recent years, the Committee of Public Accounts have been considering the administration of the service and have expressed the view that public moneys were being used not for the contributory schemes envisaged by the Act but for non-contributory schemes, with a resultant inflation in the payments from the Exchequer. They considered that, where the defect in legislation caused such a fundamental change in a scheme, new legislation should be introduced to remedy the defect, either without changing the scheme or to obtain parliamentary authority for changing it. It is not intended to change the scheme, but merely to remedy the defect and to place beyond doubt the right of local authorities to continue to operate non-contributory school meal schemes. This is done in sub-section (1).
Arising from consideration of the views of the Committee of Public Accounts, another defect has emerged. The Acts permit a local authority to defray the cost of food furnished in non-contributory school meals, but I am advised that they do not permit expenditure from the rates on the cost of preparing the food for a meal. The preparation of the food is essential in the presentation of the food in the form of a meal, and it had always been assumed that the local authorities had power to meet the cost and that this cost ranked for recoupment from the State. It is proposed to set this matter right and this is provided for in sub-section (2).
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
An English columnist once deplored, on the elevation of a baron to the title of viscount, that a very ancient barony had been submerged in a pinchbeck viscountcy. I should like to say that in a way I am sorry to see this provision coming in wrapped up in a Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The School Meals Acts have a long and somewhat historic background and I should like very briefly to dwell on that consideration because I think it should be on the records of this House.
The most interesting point is that the very first Act, which did not apply to Ireland, but applied only to England and Wales, was the very first measure on the English Statute Book promoted by the British Labour Party in 1906 when it acquired strength at the time of the Liberal landslide. The Bill was promoted then as a Private Members' Bill. The names associated with it are, I think, interesting. They included Keir Hardie, Philip Snowden, Ramsay McDonald, John R. Clynes and Arthur Henderson. It was designed to meet a specific set of circumstances in England and Wales where there were industrial areas and where, because both parents had to go to work, the children could not be provided with food during school hours. It was not purely a question of necessity and poverty. This other angle obtruded itself also.
As well as that, there were in England and Wales school committees which provided some sort of a meal service for children in industrial areas. The original Act was designed to enable local school authorities to join with these school committees in providing the meals. From that, a great deal of our subsequent trouble arose, because, in 1914, some of the Irish Members of the House of Commons decided that this measure should be applied to Ireland. One group sought to do this by an amendment to a new Bill to extend the Education (Provision of Meals) Act in England. That was ruled out of order, but at the same time a Private Members' Bill was initiated as well.
That Private Members' Bill, which is a warning to private members of the dangers of drafting legislation, was lifted word for word from the 1906 Act which applied to England and Wales. Again, from that a great deal of trouble arose. I do not know whether the Act of 1906 ever operated as it was intended to operate in England and Wales, but certainly I am very doubtful if its provisions were ever properly applied to Ireland.
The House of Commons was rather debarred from paying a great deal of attention to the measure by reason of the fact that it came before the House in Committee on 5th August, 1914, when the House of Commons had a great deal more to trouble it than the Education (Provision of Meals) Act. It shows the common sense that can manifest itself in a Parliament, even under very great stress. It did succeed in making the Act apply to Ireland, which was more than the sponsors of the Bill had succeeded in doing.
However, that was done. The circumstances in Ireland were quite different from those envisaged by the original sponsors in 1906. From that, I think, stemmed all the trouble the Department of Local Government and its successor, the Department of Social Welfare, have been in ever since. The original Act of 1914 only provided that the local authorities should pay for the provision of food for school meals and limited them to a halfpenny in the pound. An amending Act of 1916 raised that to 1d. and an Act of 1917 provided that there should be regulations made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, and they were made. I am afraid that I do not know what was in the regulations because they were superseded by subsequent regulations made by the Department of Local Government and Public Health in 1927.
In 1951-52, the Comptroller and Auditor-General became alarmed at the rise in the cost of the service and drew the attention of the Committee on Public Accounts to it. He was not completely satisfied that the regulations were, in fact, being carried out. If I say at this stage that the Audit Office never quite got round to the point of view of the Committee of Public Accounts, I do not think they would quarrel with me. What happened subsequently was due entirely to the Committee of Public Accounts. The Audit Office became satisfied that the regulations were defective because, subsequent to the inquiry into the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the Department of Social Welfare, which had now taken over this service from the Department of Local Government, were advised, I take it, by the Attorney-General, if my recollection is correct, that what was wrong was Article 8 of the regulations, which provided for a means test.
I take it that at this stage the Audit Office was satisfied that an amendment of the regulations would be sufficient. The Committee of Public Accounts were not satisfied. They had examined the statutes and it appeared to them that the statutes were very vague. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me on that point at least. This series of enactments by the British House of Commons, with additions now and again, had succeeded in creating a situation where it would be doubtful if any two lawyers would agree as to exactly what was meant by any of the provisions.
Be that as it may, the Committee of Public Accounts proceeded to inquire further into the question and pressed the matter. If I say that the Committee of Public Accounts had to press the matter, I should not like anyone to think I was questioning the right of the Departments concerned—Social Welfare and Finance—to fight back. They were perfectly entitled to do so. I think it should be put on the records of the House that the Committee, as a body of laymen, successfully fought back against all the powers that be and succeeded in the end in having this amendment made law.
Many angles were examined by the Committee both in public and in private, so to speak. Because a great many discussions took place in the office and never got on the records at all, I am afraid that a good deal of the precise history of this affair can never be found. One thing, however, is abundantly clear: the Committee set up by this House for a specific purpose very successfully carried that out. My real reason for speaking this evening is to emphasise that the Dáil was very well served in this case by its Committee.
I want to do that because there have been from time to time in recent years suggestions made that the Committee was rather a waste of time and never did anything. I do not suggest that this is a particularly important piece of work on their part—the Committee does a great many other things—but at least this has to be said for the Committee. I believe this to be the only piece of legislation which springs directly from the operations of the Committee of Public Accounts—certainly from the action of the Committee backed up by no one at all.
I think I have succeeded in doing what I set out to do, but there is just one further point. There is one thing which worried the Committee besides the points covered. It was disclosed that the meal provided varied very considerably indeed. I cannot at the moment recall the precise details, but I think the provision varied from 2d. to as much as ¼ in various areas. The Committee considered that something might be done—it would have to be done by regulation and not by Statute—to ensure some standardisation of the type of meal given to children in the various areas.
I take it that the amendments made here do not affect the provision for the making of regulations, but I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that these 1927 regulations should be looked at again, not only from the point of view of what is being done now, but also from the point of view of ensuring that children are getting an adequate meal where the State and the local authority are providing the money. It could occur that money might be expended on something which was not a meal at all. To give children a penny bun in the middle of the day and call it a meal would only be making a mockery of the intentions of this House.
I take it the intentions of this House would be to ensure that children were not prevented, by reason of lack of food, from making full use of the educational facilities provided for them. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should look into the matter from that angle and ensure, in whatever regulations he may deem it necessary to make, that attention will be paid to the type of meal provided and that children will not be fobbed off with something which is quite inadequate and merely a mockery of the intentions of this House.
This amendment comes as a result of the work of the Committee of Public Accounts. That committee is one of the most serviceable and useful committees this Dáil has. Nobody has given greater attention to the work of that committee than has Deputy Sheldon. Deputy Sweetman referred to that and he said, quite justly, that one could really call this the "Sheldon amendment", because it regulates a number of matters and resolves doubts in relation to administrative costs.
Deputy Sheldon referred to the work of the Public Accounts Committee in relation to the general work of the Dáil. He said this might not be of great importance. It is of importance. I will quote him a Northern proverb: "Every mickle makes a muckle." It is the detailed accuracy of the approach of the members of the Committee of Public Accounts which makes for good work in the Dáil.
Deputy Sheldon also referred to the cost and nature of the meals. The costs vary in different areas. In the City of Dublin, the work is done by contract. In other parts, such as the Gaeltacht, the work is done voluntarily by the teachers.
This does not apply to the Gaeltacht. There is a separate Act for that.
Perhaps I am straying a bit. Where the work is done voluntarily, it naturally costs less. The local contribution is an important factor in that, plus the help given. Notwithstanding this Bill, it will still be possible to make regulations. The Department does its best to ensure that the best possible meal is provided. We had a general discussion to-day in the Department on that matter. There are certain areas in which it is impossible to get milk at certain times of the year. I appreciate the Deputy's contribution and the work of the Public Accounts Committee which has made it possible to embody this in permanent legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the justification for such powers of inspection? Is there any evidence of abuse in the administration of the free footwear scheme? It seems a bit far-reaching that an inspector should have power, if he has reason to believe that a certain person is eligible for free footwear or has, or had, a voucher, to go in and ask a series of questions. Many people will resent that. If there is reason for it, I am sure they will appreciate the necessity for inserting this section; but recipients of free footwear may now be subjected to an inquisition by an inspector. There are hundreds and thousands of people receiving assistance from the State in various forms, to wit, the agricultural industry, industry generally and social welfare recipients. In these, there is not the same type of inquisition and I should like to hear the reasons which prompted the inclusion of this section.
The number of recipients is 79,234. There are two categories: the footwear is either given free or with a contribution. Local authorities make their own regulations and there may be certain inquiries as to the income in the home. Such inquiries are necessary.
That is not the point. Sub-section (2) says:—
"Where an inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has in his possession or control a footwear voucher or official footwear, the inspector may request that person to state whether he has or has not in his possession or control any such voucher or footwear."
Under sub-sections (3) and (4), the inspector may ask a number of questions. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of any abuses that occurred? Is it proven that a person who gets a voucher for free footwear goes into a shop and receives other than footwear for that voucher? Is that the reason for the inclusion of this section?
No. There is a regulation that footwear must be stamped with the letters "C.P." The best of leather and handiwork goes into them. We want to ensure that cheap footwear is not pawned off on the recipient of a voucher. That is where the powers of inspection come in.
That is very laudable. It is only right that the recipient should be protected and that precautions should be taken. Why is it necessary, however, for an inspector, who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person has a free footwear voucher, to ask such person the circumstances in which that voucher came into his possession or control, to produce the voucher, and to permit the inspector to examine the voucher or footwear? It would be reasonable enough if the inspector could go into a certain home and say: "I want to see the pair of boots you got for your son to ensure they are the right quality, the right price, that the stamp is on them," and so on. But why these other questions are to be asked, I cannot imagine. Sub-section (4) states:—
"An inspector may request any person to whom a footwear voucher has been issued——
(a) to state whether he has or has not exchanged the voucher for official footwear,
(b) if he has not exchanged the voucher for official footwear, to produce the voucher to the inspector and permit the inspector to examine it,
(c) if he has exchanged the voucher for official footwear, to produce the footwear to the inspector and permit the inspector to examine it."
The third one is all right, but as regards (a) and (b), has the Parliamentary Secretary reason to believe that recipients are getting other than official footwear, the stamped footwear?
Oddly enough, this matter also came up at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. I think the committee gathered at the time that there was no real evidence of anything going astray in this regard. Some years ago, I spoke on the Estimate on which the question of footwear was relevant, because I had some knowledge of this business. My belief was that the whole scheme was mad. It has probably settled down a little better by now, but certainly in the earlier years it was mad. Undoubtedly merchants were selling the official footwear to people who did not give them vouchers; there were people presenting vouchers who got other than official footwear; instead of a child getting a pair of boots for which a voucher was officially issued, the father got the boots, and there was all sorts of fiddle-de-dee going on.
However, there was a far more serious effect than that. The whole scheme was badly drafted. Far too much of an onus is put on the country shopkeeper to keep a full range of this footwear which has a very limited profit margin designed to produce good footwear at a very low price. The manufacturers and the retailers are restricted very sharply in their profit margin. The difficulty is that in a small country shop the shopkeeper has no idea of the size of footwear that will be required by the people who present the vouchers. If he intends to keep this footwear at all, he has to order in bulk from the maker.
The maker, to protect himself, because of the low margin of profit, makes this footwear in what is called a roll of sizes, what they reckon, on the average, to be the right number of the various sizes. This block has to be taken by the retailers, many of whom have been scared of this slow and uncertain trade. There is not much use in a retailer having size three if no child in the area needs that size, and as a result of the arrangement that exists a shopkeeper may have such footwear on his shelves for years. Another factor that has to be taken into consideration is that the advantage to recipients of vouchers is lessened by their having to travel a considerable distance to get footwear against the voucher.
A much easier system could have been devised. Admittedly, it would mean that the manufacturer might have to carry a little more of the burden, but I am sure adjustment of the profit margin to the manufacturers and the retailers could easily be devised to meet that situation. All that is required is that instead of one counterfoil on the voucher, there should be two which should be presented in advance. Instead of the retailer stocking this footwear he would send the appropriate counterfoil to the manufacturer and get the exact size he wanted back. He would not then have to carry a stock and he would be well satisfied to take a very nominal profit margin. The manufacturer, however, because he would now have to carry all the stocks, might require a little more, but I am sure that adjustment could be made.
This system would prevent all sorts of abuses. Vouchers could only obtain official footwear which could go only to the person entitled to the voucher. Admittedly, there are abuses nothing can stop. There is nothing to prevent a family getting official footwear and "flogging" it to somebody else, but you could stop some of the abuses. It would help matters if the Department would consult again not only with the manufacturers but with the representatives of the retail trade, because I understand that the only discussions that ever took place were with the manufacturers; they very sensibly wanted to get rid of the stocks off their shelves and adopted a scheme whereby the retailer carried a considerable part of the capital burden.
As I say, this would eliminate some of the abuses which exist. It must be remembered that resistance against all sorts of pressure which is easy in a large town is very difficult in a village where everybody is related to everybody else and the country shopkeeper cannot afford to fall out with his neighbour. Some arrangement should be made whereby the stock of footwear would be carried by the manufacturers — if necessary giving them a wider margin of profit for doing so — and the footwear for the voucher holder obtained by means of a second counterfoil which would be transmitted by the retailer to the wholesaler or manufacturer.
I should like to point out to Deputy Corish that these powers of inspection have existed since 1944, and have not been changed. The inspector must produce his authority, if required. There has been "flogging" of vouchers and sales of vouchers, and where a parent is neglectful, it is up to us to safeguard the child.
Deputy Sheldon made certain suggestions which we will consider. Living in a rural part of the country, I realise that the efficacy of the scheme is done away with to some extent when a person has to travel in a bus from, say, where I live to Mullingar to get a pair of boots, but the Department in recent times has arranged the exchange of groups of boots between one trader and another. It strikes me that there could be an anticipation by the home assistance officers of the number of boots that would be required in the area and the sizes. In that way, there could be an avoidance of the difficulties to which Deputy Sheldon referred. We shall certainly consider the suggestions made by the Deputy and fit them in as best we can.
Then we come to the inspector. If the home assistance officer reports that he has issued certain vouchers within a certain time, that they have actually been given to the people, he is put down as carrying out his duties. These regulations have been there since 1944 and we have had very few complaints, if any. The scheme is working towards perfection each year as it is carried on.
I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary has misunderstood my brief remarks. My object was to elicit the information he has now given. I wanted to know the reason for the inclusion of the section and I am satisfied now that there is justification for it.
I appreciate there is a limited amount of money for free footwear, to each local authority, but I am not absolutely satisfied that the most deserving cases get it. I do not mean there is abuse by the Department or the local authority, but I think the local authority could be a little more careful in the selection of the applicants. My impression is that, as soon as the scheme starts, it is a case of first come, first served. I know local authorities have their standards and that there is a type of means test, but it seems to me they are anxious to finish with the scheme as quickly as possible.
If the Minister could ensure some new arrangement, it might result in the most deserving cases getting the footwear. If, say, the latest date for application were set as the 5th November, then before a voucher was given, all applications could be considered and the most deserving then selected. I know of deserving applicants for free footwear having been told that all the money was expended and all the vouchers gone. There are many unfortunate people who do not appreciate that they should put their applications in before a definite time. If all applications were considered together, there would be better administration of the scheme, especially, in the case of rural areas and some of the smaller provincial towns. It may be difficult to do that; but at present there are many deserving people who make application year after year but do not get the benefit of the scheme.
I appreciate very much Deputy Corish's approach and I do not think we can express full satisfaction with the scheme. From my own local knowledge, I agree that there is a rule of thumb in it. The suggestion he made about its administration will be conveyed to the local authorities and if they carry out what he has in mind I think there will be a better and a fairer scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.