The money could have been available for this school year. My first question is: why did the Government fail to ensure that this money would be available for milk and milk products from the beginning of the academic year? If I may be so bold, I will answer that question. The reason is that this Government could not make up their minds which Minister was responsible, or should be responsible, for introducing this scheme. I put down parliamentary questions to all the Ministers who could be conceivably involved and every Minister in reply to my written questions disclaimed direct responsibility for it.
It is not a sufficient excuse to say that the scheme, of its nature, is a complex one and that a number of Government Departments would or should be involved. Practically every Government decision or scheme involves more than one Department. It is the very essence of Cabinet Government that the Cabinet make the decision as to which Department shall have the lead role and enable the scheme to go ahead. It is very hard to find any excuse for the Government failing to make a decision in relation to this scheme.
First, it is a non-contentious issue. Nobody could be against the provision of school milk in principle. Second, there could be no political differences about the issue. Third, Ireland could only gain from the introduction of the scheme. If the Government cannot make up their minds which Department should be responsible, if they cannot make up their minds about an issue which is so simple and from which we can only gain, about what sort of issue can this Government make up their minds?
To underline the catalogue of indecision and paralysis in Government, we had the most unusual, if not unprecedented, spectacle of the Minister who is now in the House to answer this matter claiming last Thursday— after full notice having been given, a letter having been delivered personally by me to the Taoiseach the previous night, after a series of parliamentary questions, and after representations from various bodies concerned, dating back for months—that he was not responsible for the scheme but saying that the Minister for Agriculture was. I do not know why a difference of opinion on a matter like school milk should arise between the Minister for Health and Social Welfare and the Minister for Agriculture but, if they cannot agree about that, it must be very difficult to expect them to agree about other and more serious issues.
My second question is this: why did the Minister for Health and Social Welfare not accept responsibility for this matter last Thursday? Why did he not answer the debate then? I hope when he rises he will be announcing that he is introducing this scheme. The House should ask itself this question: were it not for the persistent parliamentary questions I put down, or for the fact that I raised this matter twice on the Adjournment, would we have had a decision this year, or any year, about the introduction of a school milk scheme?
What are the consequences of the failure of the Government to make up their minds on this issue? There are a number of technical issues which have to be overcome before such a scheme, which would obviously be beneficial to this country, can be introduced. First, there would have to be talks with the milk processors to ensure that the right sort of product is available for supplies in the schools. You would need a specialist type of product with a specialist form of dispensing of the product. Second, there would have to be talks with the school management board and teachers about the various arrangements for interposing the supply of milk in the normal school day. Have such talks taken place? I doubt it. If they have not, why not? If the Government had decided this matter long ago, or even if they had at least decided which Minister was responsible, these talks could now have been brought to a conclusion and we would be ready to go ahead straightaway.
The second consequence of this delay and indecision on the part of the Government is that the money, which could be coming to this country and which will go to other countries in respect of the current milk marketing year, is not and will not come to this country. France, Denmark and Britain are in a position to implement this scheme straightaway. I understand the regulations in Belgium for the implementation of this scheme have been published and a decision in principle has been taken in Holland to implement it.
The result is that all those countries will almost certainly obtain money in the 1977-78 milk marketing year for the provision of milk and milk products in their schools and it looks as if we will not get any money. If we do not, the Government's responsibility in the matter is clear. Money which would otherwise have come here will have been irrevocably lost as a result of the Government's indecision.
My last question is perhaps my most important one. Why should we have a school milk scheme? Why is it a good thing? This country, unlike many other countries, does not have a school meals service. We have such a service in some Dublin schools under the Departments of Health and Social Welfare, but we do not have a comprehensive school meal service. I believe there is a case for providing school meals, and certainly for providing school milk. Many children from deprived backgrounds, where perhaps the homes are broken up because of alcoholism or some other factor which diminishes the competence of the children, may go to school without a proper breakfast, or if they have a breakfast it consists of food not properly balanced from a dietary point of view. They will go into school where they will not get a school meal, or any sustenance during the day unless they have been provided with a packed lunch. If their parents were unable to provide them with an adequate breakfast, it is unlikely they will be provided with a packed lunch. The result is that many of these children will not be able to concentrate on their education and derive benefit from that education to the same extent as their peers who are adequately fed. This fact was recognised by the Department of Education when they introduced a school meal service in Rutland Street, a deprived part of this city. They recognised that the provision of food, or a food equivalent, during the day was an important factor in improving education.
The provision of a school milk service, as well as ensuring that the children from deprived backgrounds avail of adequate education, will also be of assistance to parents in defraying the amount of money that they would otherwise have to pay for other products in substitution for the milk that they would get under the scheme.
The second reason in favour of the introduction of the scheme is agriculture. We are a leading dairy producing country in the EEC. The dairy industry is a larger factor in our economy than it is in the economics of any other EEC countries. Therefore it is in our interests to be in the lead in any measure which will expand the consumption of milk in the Community. If this scheme were introduced it would add approximately three million gallons to the total amount of milk products being consumed here every year. We are already high per capita consumers of milk products and it is in our interests to try to persuade by example other EEC countries to raise their consumption of milk products. We cannot do this with conviction if we have to tell them that while money was made available to us to introduce a school milk scheme we failed to avail of the money. We cannot encourage other countries to consume more of our milk products unless we show the basis confidence in our own products when money is made available. This scheme is necessary. Will the Minister introduce it and, if so, when? If not, why not? Why has there been such a long delay in coming to a decision, which Minister is responsible, and will he say whether or not the scheme should be introduced?