Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Apr 1978

Vol. 305 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Milk Products Scheme: Motion.

Mr. Bruton

I move:

That Dáil Éireann requests the Government to immediately avail of the EEC aid which is available for the purpose and introduce a comprehensive scheme for the provision of milk and milk products in schools.

We should avail of this aid for a number of reasons. Basically, the EEC makes available 50 per cent of the cost of milk provided in schools throughout the Community. One-third of that 50 per cent of aid from the EEC will come from the FEOGA fund and the remaining two-thirds from the proceeds of a levy to be raised by the EEC from all milk producers in the Community, including Irish milk producers. Therefore, Irish milk producers, through that levy, make a contribution to a fund to provide milk in schools. As milk producers proportionately form a higher share of the population here than in most countries it is possible that the Irish are making a larger proportionate contribution to the fund that is being used in part to provide milk in schools than any other member state. However, we are the only country, with the exception of Italy, not availing of this scheme even though we make a substantial contribution towards it.

Between September 1977 and January 1978 almost £1½ million was collected from Irish farmers to be put into the co-responsibility fund. The collection was at the rate of .9 of a penny per gallon and it will continue for five years or more. In spite of that we are not availing of one of the important forms of service being made available by the fund, namely a scheme for the provision of milk in schools. Some people might say that as the majority of Irish people are reasonably well-off school-going children get a reasonable breakfast before going to school in the morning. Those people may ask if there is a necessity for milk in schools from a social and educational point of view. In fairness, it is probably true to say that the majority of the children do not need milk in school but we are not talking about the provision of social services necessarily or of majorities. We are talking about the less fortunate in our community who do not constitute the majority but who are the primary concern of our social services, namely the least well-off in our society.

I collected some figures which indicate that a substantial number of children go to school undernourished and are unable to derive maximum benefit from our educational system because of insufficient nourishment. This arises partly because of lack of means on the part of the parents to provide a breakfast for their children, partly because the children, particularly those in rural areas, must leave very early—in some cases as early as 7.30 a.m.—to get a bus to bring them to school, and partly, and most significantly, because of the fact that in a small minority of families the parents are not competent to provide adequate nourishment for their children. This happens through alcoholism on the part of one or both parents, through lack of education or severe subnormality of one sort or another on the part of either parent. They do not see it as their duty to provide adequate nourishment for their children before going to school. The result is that a substantial number of children, children about whom we should be concerned, go to school without adequate nourishment to enable them face the day.

In the course of a small survey which I carried out I asked a number of teachers what percentage of the children in their school would fit into the category of undernourished and not able fully to avail of the educational programme because of undernourishment. I was told that between 2 and 4 per cent of the children in the schools concerned fitted into this category. When one considers the total number of school children in the country the figure of 2 or 4 per cent is not that small because it accounts for many thousands of children. I should also like to give details of a survey which was carried out in a Dublin vocational school. In this connection I should mention that the school meal service which exists in Dublin does not extend to vocational schools; it applies only to primary schools. The survey in that school—I can give the Minister the name of the school concerned if he doubts the veracity of my statement— showed that of a school population of 250, 22 of the children did not have a breakfast. If the parents were not able to provide them with a breakfast it is unlikely that they were able to provide them with a lunch either and those children would have had to go through the day without any nourishment. It is hard to imagine how children who may have had their last meal at about 6 p.m. the previous evening could hope to concentrate on their lessons the following day without any nourishment.

That survey was a random one and was not done for the purpose of proving anything.

The third statistic I should like to cite for the Minister is that quoted in a study prepared for the Bishops on the meaning of poverty. That study shows that 2.9 per cent of the families surveyed by the sociologists engaged by the Bishops to carry out the survey—obviously, this is a larger sample than one vocational school and covers a substantial number of families—did not have any breakfast. Roughly 40 per cent of the families surveyed had a breakfast which consisted of nothing more than bread, butter and tea. There was very little protein content necessary for the maintenance of the body, in the diet of 40 per cent of the children in the families surveyed. That survey was not of the total population or of a cross-section. I do not know what precise method of selection was used but I presume the families were in the less well-off socio-economic groups generally.

That survey indicates that there is a problem of under nourishment in our schools. It behoves the Minister to seek every means possible to meet this problem. It behoves him to seek means, using our native resources to solve such a severe problem. However, when it transpires that another agency, the EEC, to which we are making a substantial contribution, is prepared to make available 50 per cent of the cost of a scheme which will provide the most balanced and complete food of all, milk, in our schools it certainly behoves the Minister to avail of that aid. It behoves the Minister to ensure that all children are provided with some means of nutrition during the day and in particular that the problem of the children I mentioned earlier is dealt with.

The aid being made available by the EEC in this case is by no means ungenerous. The usual pattern for EEC aid, as instanced in the case of the farm modernisation scheme in the case of aid to eligible farmers, who are only a small minority of the total number of farmers, is 25 per cent or one-quarter and the remaining 75 per cent must be provided by the Irish Exchequer. The rate of aid in this scheme for the provision of school milk is far more generous. It is proposed that the EEC provide £2 for every £1 provided by the Irish Exchequer, the idea being that for every £ provided by the Irish Exchequer, £2 would be provided by the EEC and £1 by the child using the milk. Even if one dispensed with the child's contribution the EEC would still be providing £ for £. In terms of rates of contribution from the EEC this is comparatively a much more favourable scheme than the farm modernisation scheme where the EEC provide £1 for every £4 provided by the Irish Exchequer.

The argument for school milk is primarily based I think on considerations I have already mentioned—the fact that there is a significant minority of children who actually seriously need this milk so that they may be able to avail of the education they are getting and so that they may develop physically and avoid starvation which will exist in any society, even in those more prosperous than ours, because a minority of parents, even though they may have the money, are not able, because of alcoholism or some other problem, to use it to provide nourishment for their children. There are other arguments but I again assert that this is the main one before going on to other arguments which also deserve consideration but do not take from the importance of the main one. The main consideration originally in the EEC's mind, though not in ours in availing of the scheme, in introducing it was to relieve the Community of the surpluses of milk products which have grown up over years in the EEC. They have decided to levy milk producers to create a fund which is being used for this and other means of promoting greater consumption of milk products throughout the Community.

Ireland, in proportion to its total population, has the largest milk production and therefore one would expect the Irish Government to be in the lead if a proposal is made to find means of expanding milk consumption so that the product we produce and from which we derive a substantial proportion of our total national income would be consumed to a greater extent. One would expect Ireland to give an example to other countries as to what can be done so that they would be encouraged to follow suit. There is need for this because there are substantial surpluses of milk products in the Community and this is leading other countries to propose drastic curbs on the common agricultural policy which provides a floor under our agricultural industry which provides a basic income for our farmers. Other countries are proposing, because of these surpluses, to undermine the intervention system and to reduce the common agricultural policy which was such an important reason for our joining EEC in the first place. Obviously, one would expect Ireland as a dairying and agricultural country to be in the lead in providing a scheme such as this, for which EEC aid is available, to increase milk consumption.

It has been calculated that about ten million extra gallons of milk would be consumed as a result of this scheme. That figure was produced by another agency; I have no figure but I have heard other figures which are less; some suggest three million gallons. I am not sure what the net extra consumption would be but I think it would be significant. Yet, despite these arguments the Irish Government is the last Government with the exception of Italy, to make any move to avail of this scheme. This is regrettable because we are trying to get other countries to do things which are inconvenient for them such as, in the case of some continental countries, the reintroduction of daily milk deliveries. We take daily deliveries for granted here but they do not exist in many continental countries. They play a large part in ensuring that we consume more milk per head than most other EEC countries. Germany and some other countries do not have daily deliveries. Their people must go to the supermarket to buy milk. We, along with the EEC Commission and others concerned about milk surpluses, are trying to encourage these other countries to introduce daily milk deliveries because it would obviously help to remove the surpluses. If we want to carry conviction in getting other countries to do something that may be inconvenient for them, it is only sensible to expect that we should do what is in our power to increase milk consumption in our own country. We can scarcely expect others to make efforts we are not prepared to make. The one thing we can do to increase milk consumption here is to introduce this comprehensive scheme for the provision of milk and milk products. We are not doing it.

The Minister has objected that the provision of free school milk would cost the Irish Exchequer an extra £6 million. If so, there would probably be another £6 million coming from the EEC to this country. The Minister may dispute the figure; it may be £4 million or £5 million. He may produce his own figure, but his estimate of the cost of £6 million is based on certain assumptions not all of which are necessarily valid. First, it is based on the assumption that there will be no charge for the milk to the pupil. Secondly, it is based on the assumption that it will be introduced in all schools, national and secondary, including schools which, perhaps, have no great need of it. For instance, if, as an initial measure, we were to introduce it only in national schools, that would significantly reduce the £6 million. If, on the other hand, one were to have a small charge which could be paid either by the parents or in the case of home assistance recipients who are the people we want to get at most, could be paid by the health boards to the schools. The fact that a charge would be levied from some of the pupils could be used to reduce to some extent the £6 million the Minister alleged would be spent.

In talking in terms of a global figure of £6 million the Minister is perhaps adopting the wrong approach. He should think rather of the benefits which would be given to a large number of children by the provision of this scheme. Existing schemes in this area—the provision of milk and school meals to children—are not exactly per capita the most expensive social service in the country. In terms of benefit to a large number of people they have the lowest rate of cost to the Exchequer. I have been informed that the existing school meal service which is available in 50 per cent of the urban areas and not available at all in the rural areas—one of my endeavours in promoting this matter is to get it extended to the rural areas and to get at least the milk products extended to the remaining 50 per cent of the urban areas—in 1975, the date for which the latest figures are available, cost 3.92p per meal per child. It is very hard to imagine a meal being provided less expensively even in 1975, and granted that there has been significant inflation in the cost of food since then, this indicates that we are not talking about a social service the unit cost of which is astronomically high and that there is a danger of people getting away with something or of children abusing the service. If in 1975 a meal cost less than 4p, at its most generous it would probably cost 7p or 8p now. We can see from that that the meals service is not the most expensive of the social services being made available at the moment.

The Minister's answer to my argument as to why we should introduce a scheme of this nature has been that he could see no great need for it. He declared himself to have been, I hope I am not misquoting him, initially, sympathetic to the idea but as a result of his personal investigations he did not see the need for it. One of the reasons for that was that 50 per cent of the urban authorities who already had the statutory powers to introduce a school meals service had not chosen to do so or to apply for EEC aid.

The Minister is expecting urban authorities of their own accord to come forward and seek to avail of this scheme—for instance expecting the Trim Urban Council to apply to the Commission in Brussels without the Minister asking for this aid—is being unrealistic, even assuming that the money could be obtained in that way, that they have contacts in Brussels and that they were able to process their claims. Even more important is the fact that this year it is not possible for local authorities to introduce new services, whether it be a school milk, school meal or any other service. They have been told that they may not levy any rates on houses, because of the abolition of the rates on houses. They must rely on collecting rates to pay their share of this scheme, on the one hand, from the non-domestic rates properties, such as factories and shops, and, on the other hand, from a rate which would be paid by the Exchequer as a rates grant in respect of the domestic rates which have been abolished. It is not possible for local authorities to increase the rates, to "print money" by simply increasing the rates on domestic dwellings by 20 per cent and hoping the Government will come up with the money to enable them to introduce new services.

They have been told by the Minister for the Environment that they may not increase the rates being paid by commercial ratepayers or the rates being paid in lieu of domestic rates by the State by more than 11 per cent. That 11 per cent barely covers the maintenance of their existing service. It certainly does not allow them the possibility of doing as the Minister for Health seems to believe they would spontaneously do, and that is seek to introduce new services such as school meal or school milk schemes, particularly when to get the EEC contribution towards the cost they would have to negotiate with Brussels themselves because the Minister is not interested in the matter.

This scheme was introduced in a directive in May and this Government came into office in July. From July until December the Government could not make up their minds which Minister was responsible for availing of the EEC aid for school milk. I raised the matter originally by way of a variety of questions to all the Ministers who could be responsible, and in reply every one said that he was not responsible and that he had had talks with the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Education and so on, but that he was not primarily responsible for the scheme. No Minister was responsible. There is no such thing in proper Government circles as a scheme for which no Minister is responsible. Invariably some Minister has primary responsibility and others may be involved in a secondary capacity. From the questions I put down in November 1977 it transpired that although this scheme had been in existence since the previous May, no Minister accepted that he was responsible for negotiating with Brussels. Is it any wonder no decision was taken up to that? As a direct result of my raising the matter on the Adjournment the Minister for Health, who was in the House, refused to take it and said he was not responsible.

Mr. Haughey

It was the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister carries both responsibilities. For "Health" read "Social Welfare" in all cases. He disclaimed responsibility. It was impossible for the Adjournment Debate to be taken on that day because no Minister would accept responsibility. I raised the matter the following Tuesday. Who came into the House to answer the debate and say he was responsible? The Minister for Social Welfare, although the previous Thursday he had said he was not responsible. It was speedy decision-making on the part of the Government which would never have taken place had I not raised the matter on the Adjournment in the first place and created what must have been significant embarrassment for the Minister for Health and his colleagues at the usual Government meeting the following day, Friday, at 11 a.m., when they had to decide which Minister was responsible. Was the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Social Welfare going to accept responsibility? For once the Minister for Social Welfare seems to have lost the battle. Evidently he did not want to be responsible for this matter. He did not want to be responsible for the provision of school milk and availing of aid from the EEC. He evidently lost the battle and was responsible, as he has to answer for the debate.

We could have introduced that scheme in September 1977 and it would have been in existence for the 1977-78 academic year, but because the Government could not make up their minds until they were forced to do so by me in December they did not even apply, presumably. As a result of my applying the pressure on the Government to make up their minds as to which Minister was responsible, the Minister for Social Welfare apparently decided that he would apply to the EEC for aid. But what did he apply for. As is contained in his own amendment to my motion today, he applied for aid to have the EEC subsidy for the supply of milk and milk products under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1080/77 made available for existing school meals schemes. What in effect he was proposing to do was simply to use EEC money to save cash which the Exchequer is already having to provide for these school meals, instead of using that money to expand the consumption of milk and to provide better meals for children who are already getting school meals. Perhaps the Minister will be able to deny this when he comes to speak on the debate and if he does I will be delighted.

The EEC will provide money which up to now the Irish Government have been providing. If that is what the Minister has in mind it will be hard to think of a greater abuse of an EEC scheme. I remember hearing people from these benches when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition condemning the then Government—of which I was a member—allegedly using EEC Regional Fund money to prop up schemes which the Government were going to introduce anyway with their own money, and for not introducing new schemes with the EEC Regional Fund money. This is precisely what the Minister for Social Welfare proposes to do himself in relation to school milk. Instead of expanding the scheme, as is intended when we are given money from the EEC, he is proposing to use the EEC money to save money which the Irish Government are already spending on these schemes anyway. That is an abuse of the EEC scheme. If that is not what the Minister has in mind I will be happy to change my tune to that extent.

I would like some information about the Minister's application for the EEC subsidy for the supply of milk and milk products under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1080/77. First, I would like an answer to the question I have posed already about what it is being used for. Secondly, when was it made? Thirdly, when is it likely to be dealt with? Is it not true that other countries already have commitments to get aid of this sort from the EEC? Why is it that we are talking only about a mere application on which apparently there has been no decision yet? Inquiries were made from the EEC Commission about this application by the Irish Government for aid under this heading and the EEC Commission official who answered the question seemed not even to have heard of the Irish Government's application. The application is there if the Minister says it is, but when a reasonably serious inquiry of a reputable organisation elicits the response that the application had not been heard of it seems that at the very least the Minister for Health is not over to Brussels and back every week seeking to have the money paid out and a decision taken on the scheme. Even though this will save money for his own Exchequer he seems to be pursuing the matter with remarkably little force.

I would like to make one further point about this scheme, and it is an important one. It seems that many children are not attracted by simply getting milk in its natural state, cold milk.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has three minutes.

Mr. Bruton

Thank you, that is quite adequate. They would prefer some other milk product which would be more attractive. Lest some people might think that the milk products scheme implies only milk and that that is all that the EEC are prepared to make aid available for, and that this would not be very attractive and the children would not be prepared to take it, let me say that this EEC aid can be made available for cocoa, for hot milk involved in chocolate, for yoghourt, and I am sure if the Government were to press hard enough it could be made available for cheese, although that is not provided for in the scheme. There is something for every case. If a child does not like cold milk he can have hot milk. If he does not like unflavoured milk he can have cocoa. If he does not like any form of milk product of that sort he can have yoghourt. All of those schemes can be provided under this with substantial aid from the EEC to which the Irish farmer in less than half a year has already provided £1½ million and he will continue to provide money for that fund. Yet the Irish Government apparently are not prepared to avail of this scheme except merely to defray the expenses which they otherwise would be incurring.

It is regrettable, but I do not wish to approach this matter in a partisan manner. My motion, although the Minister has seen fit to amend it, has been very moderately phrased. I hope the Minister will respond in the same manner, and will be able to tell the House that he has reconsidered the matter and that he will be introducing, if not a comprehensive scheme, at least a scheme in some areas which would give the children who want it the option of availing of it, even at a charge. Let us try it out. Do not let the Minister decide for the people whether or not they want it, as he seems to be doing, by looking into his own heart. Make it available to them and let us see whether it works. Until you provide the option for them you have no way of knowing whether or not children are interested in this. I ask the Minister to do that at least so that they can see who is right as to whether or not there is a need for a scheme of this sort.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Haughey)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"approves the Government's decision to seek to have the EEC subsidy for the supply of milk and milk products under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1080/77 made available for existing school meals schemes".

When Deputy Bruton first raised this matter on the Adjournment early in December last I expressed certain views about the EEC scheme which is the subject matter of this motion. I think that the views I expressed on that occasion are still valid.

First of all, I asked the House to look at the details of the EEC scheme and what were offered. Under the Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1080/ 77 of 17 May 1977 and EEC Commission Regulation No. 1598/77 of 15 July 1977 the Community contribution is payable for a period of at least five years from 1 May 1977 for the financing of member states' programmes for the supply of milk and certain milk products at reduced prices for school children. The Community will pay 50 per cent of the target price of the milk on condition that the member state pays at least 50 per cent of the rest. The balance may be charged to the schoolchildren. Up to 18 April 1978 50 per cent of the member states' contribution may be in the form of a grant towards equipment for storing and distributing the milk, and the amount of milk supplied to each pupil is limited to a quarter of a litre or approximately half a pint per school day.

I want, first of all, to have a quick look at the background to this and to sketch very briefly our national situation in regard to milk. Deputy Bruton painted a picture of the Community and the various countries and urged that we should set a headline for other countries in the Community in encouraging the consumption of milk. That is patently absurd. We are the highest consumers of milk in the entire Community. We are such high consumers of milk that it is doubtful if there is any capacity to expand the consumption of milk here. We consume 44.4 gallons of milk per head per year. That figure may not mean much to everybody, but we must compare it with the figures for the other Community countries. In Germany they consume 12.5 gallons of milk per head per year; in France the figure is 14 gallons; in Italy 15 gallons; in the Netherlands 15 gallons; in Belgium 13 gallons; in Luxembourg 18 gallons and in Denmark 15.69 gallons. There is absolutely no basis of comparison between our consumption and that in other European countries. It is absurd for Deputy Bruton to suggest that we should take the initiative, take the lead, in promoting increased milk consumption for the purpose of being good Europeans and advancing the cause of our own agriculture and particularly our milk industry.

Deputy Bruton ignored the fact that milk consumption is already heavily subsidised. The economic price of milk is 11.5p per pint and already the Exchequer contribute a subsidy of 3.5p so that the retail price is 8p per pint. That 35p by which the taxpayer is already subsidising every pint of liquid milk amounts to £25 million a year. In addition, approximately £16 million goes towards subsidising the consumption of butter. Between these two milk products the subsidy is over £40 million per year from the taxpayers. These are two significant points which Deputy Bruton did not put before the House. We are already well ahead of the rest of Europe in the consumption of milk per capita and we are heavily subsidising every pint of liquid milk consumed in this country, as well as butter.

I refer to another very minor point which is partly relevant. There is a minor milk distribution scheme operated by the health boards for expectant mothers and certain families, and this scheme costs another £400,000 a year. That is not of any great significance in the overall context.

I will relate the figures to the ordinary pint of milk, as that is the point that will concern the ordinary Deputy. The economic price of milk is 11.5p per pint and the State is already subsidising that to the extent of 3.5p, making the retail price 8p. Under this great new generous offer by the EEC, they would subsidise milk in so far as it is consumed by schoolchildren by a further 3.8p, leaving 4.2p to be paid by someone else. I am very adamant that this 4.2p should not be paid by the schoolchild.

I want to reject completely something which Deputy Bruton said in his approach to this matter. He suggested that the milk need only be provided free for certain children, those who could not afford to pay, and that the rest should pay. That would be reprehensible. It is bad enough having to have means tests later on in life for old age pensions and things of that sort. I feel that any Deputy who thinks about it would not like to see a means test in the school between one child and another. The only way would be to give free milk to the children. There are other technical difficulties concerned. I think teachers would not be prepared to collect the money and there would be a difficulty there. The idea of collecting 4p per day from each child for each pint of milk consumed is absurd and ridiculous. It would be unworkable and, apart from that, it would be completely undesirable in principle.

If the State were to pick up the tab for the 4.2p per pint and if the scheme were extended to all the 800,000 children in primary and secondary schools, the extra cost to the Exchequer would be approximately £6 million. That is the calculation. If the scheme were confined to the 500,000 children in primary schools, it would cost £4 million. If we had an all-party committee of sensible Deputies from all sides of the House and if I told them that the Minister for Finance was prepared to make available to me £6 million for some new social welfare scheme and asked them how it should be spent, I would wager that additional free milk in the schools would not be their choice. They would think of all the various demands and pressures for additional welfare and community services and so on.

This offer from the EEC is a whited sepulchre, to use a metaphor which in this context might be frowned upon. It is not an offer that we can accept in the present circumstances. I think there is not a demand throughout the community for a scheme of this sort, and I want to give the House some other figures in this context. We have an existing free school meals service, such as it is. It is confined to urban areas and is operated by the local authorities, but the Department of Social Welfare pay the bill.

Mr. Bruton

Not the entire bill.

Mr. Haughey

Yes, the entire bill. The local authority pay the administrative cost.

Mr. Bruton

It is 50/50.

Mr. Haughey

When taking the subsidy into account.

Mr. Bruton

No.

Mr. Haughey

The figures in this connection are very interesting. Of 89 urban authorities in the country only 49 operate the existing free scheme. Only 49 think it worth while to adopt the existing scheme. Of them, only 27 use milk in their scheme. That is indicative of the fact that milk in this context is not what most people want and there is not any particular pressure or demand for it. It is not awarded any sort of high priority by the urban authorities or schools concerned. That reinforces me in my view that if we were to spend £4 million or £6 million extra this is not the area to which is should be directed. There is no doubt of that. There is no doubt that the extension of free milk along the lines suggested by Deputy Bruton, across the board throughout the country, confined to primary schools, would involve very considerable administrative difficulties. Apart from the difficulty I have mentioned, the problem of trying to collect 4.2p or 4p a day from each child concerned would be a considerable difficulty. I doubt if it would be administratively possible to have it right across the board throughout the country for various technical reasons.

I come back to what I said earlier, that I do not think there is any demand for it. The schools to which it is already available do not avail of it to any considerable extent. I hear different reports about the existing scheme, whether it is satisfactory or not. Very early in my examination of the different social welfare services I set up a small group in the Department to look at the existing scheme to see if it was satisfactory, if it was giving value for money, if it could be improved, and generally to look at it and see what we should do about it That group are looking at this matter. We will ask them if the existing free meal scheme, including milk, can or should be extended in any way.

An interesting thing about the existing scheme is that it is possible to include milk in it, but only 27 of the 49 urban authorities use milk as part of the meals provided. This scheme extends to the Gaeltacht areas as well as the urban areas and nowhere in the Gaeltacht areas, which are rural areas, do they use milk. No school in the Gaeltacht areas use milk in their free school meal scheme. The conclusion is inevitable, that in rural Ireland and to a great extent in urban areas milk is not in demand and there is no pressure for it. That is directly related to the fact that we are already consuming enormous quantities of milk per head compared with any other country in Europe. Deputy Bruton gave a figure of 2 per cent to 4 per cent of schoolchildren being undernourished. This is the result of a survey which he carried out, and I commend him for doing that. I personally thought that the figure was perhaps a bit higher but taking it at 4 per cent that means that four children out of a school of 100 pupils are under-nourished, and presumably according to Deputy Bruton they would avail of this free milk scheme.

Mr. Bruton

I want the scheme introduced generally. Those children would benefit from that.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy would regard four children out of 100 as being in special need of milk. I do not think we would be justified in introducing an overall scheme for all the children at the cost that would be involved and the administrative difficulties just to cope with either two or four of those children. Deputy Bruton wants the scheme across the board. He would certainly be giving milk to a very high proportion of children in the ordinary schools which they did not want and which they would not take in order to cope with two or four children.

Mr. Bruton

I agree with the Minister.

Mr. Haughey

I am sure there must be a better way of looking after those two or four children.

Mr. Bruton

Has the Minister found it?

Mr. Haughey

I admit I have not and I admit that there are statistics which are disconcerting in this area. I established this committee to look into the school meals scheme, to see where it is falling down, to see why only 49 out of the 89 urban authorities are availing of it and to see why in those 49 cases only 27 of them are using milk. When I get the answer to that I will perhaps be able to take a further look at the situation. I am quite satisfied that as of now what I said on the occasion when we last discussed this matter, on the Adjournment in December, is still perfectly valid, that this scheme put forward by the EEC to us is not acceptable and is not the sort of scheme from which we can derive any benefit. It would not enable us to meet some present demands as far as I am concerned as Minister for Social Welfare. If I had £6 million, £4 million or even £3 million, this is not the way I would use that money. As I said, we are already very high consumers of milk. I do not believe there would be any real increase in the consumption of milk if any of those schemes were adopted. I believe there would simply be a switch and milk would be made available in schools under this scheme which is already being consumed in the households in the normal way. This is not a scheme, taking everything into account, which I believe would be beneficial to our services at this stage or which would give us value for money.

Mr. Horgan

I listened with interest to the Minister's speech. Some of the points he made deserve further consideration. I find it difficult, however, to follow some of the logical connections between some of the factual statements he made and the conclusions in argument he drew from them. Of course, it is true that we are the highest consumers of milk in the European Economic Community at present. It does not follow from that as a simple statement like night follows day, that it is impossible, unnecessary or unwise to increase the consumption of milk in this country. I suspect one of the reasons why we are the highest consumers of milk in the EEC is that we produce more milk proportionally than anybody else. We produce milk very well. It is a comparatively cheap and instantly available source of protein for many people. It is not the least bit surprising that our consumption of it should be so high. It is not necessary to assume that because it is high that it cannot or should not be increased.

It is true, as the Minister said, that the consumption of milk is already heavily subsidised but I would point out to him that the amendment in his name and the motion in the names of Deputies Boland, Bruton and D'Arcy does not refer to milk alone but to milk and milk products. One of the prime milk products in Ireland is cheese which is considerably less subsidised now than it used to be under the previous Administration, so subsidy cuts both ways. I am very puzzled by the Minister's logic in proposing this amendment in the terms in which he proposes it. He costed a scheme which would give effectively a half pint of milk to every primary school child in the country at approximately £4 million a year. He said that he was adamant that any sums which were not to be paid by the EEC should not be paid by the school children themselves. I agree with him about the need to ensure that schemes like this are nondiscriminatory. I am sure he will also agree with me when I say that spending money on the children, particularly those at primary and national schools, is one of the most effective forms of social investment that we can carry out.

I was astonished to hear the Minister say that he assumed that some all-party committee of wise men given £4 million or £4.2 million to spend would almost by definition come up with some other scheme rather than this one to spend it on. Of course we do not have an all-party committee. The priorities for the social expenditure of the Government in this area are determined by the Government as a whole and by the Minister for Social Welfare in this instance. The Minister cannot fob off on some non-existing all-party committee the job of deciding whether or not £4 million is to be spent on this scheme or on some other scheme, because it is his job to decide or to recommend to the Government as it will be the electorate's job to decide whether or not he made the right decision. Regardless of how he argues, I think it will be very difficult for him and his colleagues to persuade the electorate that they were doing the right thing in turning down a scheme of this kind at this time, because it will be seen by the electorate as a refusal to take up funds which could be expended for the benefit of children in our primary schools. They may not be in touch with the Minister's arguments and may not appreciate some of the finer points that he makes, but they will see that this money was available to benefit the children and they will see that the Minister did not choose to avail of it. They will be asking why and we will certainly be asking why.

I was intrigued to hear the Minister say that he was totally opposed to the idea of having a school meals service introduced in primary schools on the basis of a means test which would discriminate between one child and another. There is already a major scheme introduced by a Government of which he was a member which does discriminate between school children, and that is the free school books scheme. If the Minister were to be logical he would be as critical of that scheme as he has been on the proposal of Deputy Bruton. Quite a high proportion of the complaints about the administration of the educational system—and they come not just from parents but from teachers as well— relate specifically to the invidious nature of this discrimination. So the Minister must take this into account if he is to criticise the proposal that children pay for milk. He must also take into account the fact that there is also such a means testing scheme in schools in some other communities.

I would prefer to see him introduce a free books scheme than to change his mind and favour discrimination in the area of school milk. The fundamental inconsistency in the Minister's case is that he is arguing very strongly in favour of a hypothetical situation, but if this kind of scheme is worth bringing in at all it must be brought in on a universal basis and on a free basis. Yet his amendment sharply limits the area in which the scheme would have application because it reads: "approves the Government's decision to seek to have the EEC subsidy for the supply of milk and milk products under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1080/77 made available for existing school meals schemes". As he has been at pains to tell us, the existing school meals scheme operates in only a minority of local authority areas. So while criticising the scheme, as advanced by Deputy Bruton, which would distinguish between children on the basis of means——

Mr. Bruton

I was not in favour of this. I said it was a possibility if the Minister could not raise the full amount of money.

Mr. Horgan

I accept the Deputy's correction. While criticising the possibility advanced by Deputy Bruton that a distinction might in certain circumstances be made, he is introducing another distinction based on geography. Not only that, he is seeking to bring the benefit of this subsidy into operation via a scheme, the scheme referred to in the Government amendment, which is out of date, inadequate, under-financed and under-researched. Some of its main defects have long been evident. The first of these defects, and one which is serious enough to enable us to oppose this amendment, is that only 49 of the 89 local authorities operate the scheme at all. These are the local authorities in the urban areas and in the Gaeltacht areas. The reason that the other 40 authorities do not operate the scheme is not that they have never thought about it but that they are not entitled to do so. It is quite misleading to suggest that the reason why only half of the local authorities operate this scheme is that there is no demand for it from the other half. Not only that, even the basic idea behind this scheme has been rendered very much out of date by the growth in our urban areas.

It is not so long ago, under a previous administration, that the free school meals scheme was extended to the 60,000 people living in Ballymun because that administration realised that the school meals scheme, as it operated, was excluding many thousands of people. Technically, if you like, they should have brought in legislation to change the scheme to include the larger urban areas. In fact, they persuaded the City Manager to extend the boundary to include this populous area, but there are other populous areas in Dublin which, because they fall outside the boundaries of the city as defined, are not entitled to benefit from this scheme. Tallaght is one of the most obvious examples I can think of.

As the growth of our cities continues, it is obvious that there will continue to be a further geographical discrimination between needy children from identical urban deprived backgrounds who are entitled to the free meals scheme, and children who are not. The answer to that is to revise the whole basis of the scheme. The Minister said a working party is looking at this. I can only hope, for the sake of the children concerned, that they will be speedy in the completion of their work.

The second main reason why this scheme which the Government amendment seems to regard as an approppriate vehicle for the distribution of milk is inadequate, is that it is based on local option. It is up to the manager in each individual school, in present circumstances the management committee, to apply for the free meals service to the local authority or not to apply. In the past, I have no doubt at all, there were children in urban areas, and perhaps also in Gaeltacht areas, who needed the kind of sustenance which could have been provided by this scheme who did not get it, either because of an oversight or I do not know what. In any event, if the local application by the individual school was not made those children did not get meals, regardless of what the local authority thought, regardless of what social workers thought, regardless of what the school attendance officers thought.

I would be interested to hear, if the figures are there on the Government side, what proportion and percentage of schools within each of these 49 local authority areas who operate the scheme are actually taking it. I suspect even that percentage is low, and I believe very strongly that the small percentage in no way reflects the real need. One of the reasons why this scheme is inadequate is that——

Mr. Haughey

In Dublin, for instance, 218 out of 247 national schools avail of it.

Mr. Horgan

That is a fairly high proportion, I am glad to hear. That is in the Corporation of Dublin area?

Mr. Haughey

Dublin city. That accounts for 85 per cent of the total expenditure on the scheme.

Mr. Horgan

I am grateful to the Minister for the figure. I am sure he would be the first to admit, as I would assert, that it is unthinkable that 85 per cent of the total need occurs in the urban area of the centre of Dublin. I should certainly hope that is not the case. While it indicates that the urban centre of Dublin may be comparatively well provided for in terms of this scheme, it hints at considerable gaps elsewhere in other urban areas and perhaps in the Gaeltacht as well.

I should be glad to hear from the Government side if any research is being carried out into what precise form of nutrition is regarded as being most appropriate. I have often thought that the debate about school meals, school lunches, should be replaced in some areas by a debate about school breakfasts. The problem in many areas is not so much that the children are hungry in the middle of the day but that they are hungry coming to school. This may be a graver source of educational deprivation even than the physical condition of the schools.

I would urge the Minister, if he is going to confine this scheme to the areas at present covered by the free school meals scheme, to investigate the possibility of using this milk not served cold in the middle of the day but served hot or as cocoa or something at the beginning of the day, especially in the winter when it is likely to do most good. This is the form in which it is likely to do most good.

So far as the administration of the scheme is concerned, I agree with the basic motion that it should be a national scheme and should not be confined to the areas covered by the present free school meals scheme. I make the Minister a present of the following suggestion. If he says it is too expensive to compulsorily administer half a pint of milk every day to half a million primary school children, let him offer to every school in the country and to every child in the country the option of having a free half pint of milk every day. We are very hung up sometimes about the provision of services because we fail to think in terms of options. We tend to think in terms either of being compulsory or being banned.

If the Minister were to offer an option of milk to every child in every school and eventually adjust the supply to meet the demand, it might or might not cost him a great deal less than his £4 million. If he were to take that kind of scheme into account he could look at it this way, and I suggest to him that he should look at it this way. If it is true, as he said, that we are already drinking enough milk, if it is true that it is impossible to push up the consumption of milk, if it is true that local authorities and schools in the local authority areas are not interested in providing milk, then he can offer this scheme nationally and it will not cost him more than a couple of quid.

Mr. Bruton

That is right.

Mr. Horgan

He will save his money and, if it is taken up, on the other hand, it will be proof that it is needed.

Mr. Bruton

Hear, hear.

Mr. Horgan

One position or the other. If he offers the milk on a voluntary optional basis to the children, if it is taken up that will be proof positive that it is needed. If it is not, he will save his money. For a Minister to be in that position, to me, is enviable indeed.

Mr. D'Arcy

The Minister's amendment to the proposed motion is a red herring. It is an attempt by the Minister not to accept this EEC scheme. The Minister said he felt there was no capacity for the further consumption of milk. It was unfair of him to say that. That statement was completely off balance, because the Minister did not tell the House why we have almost the highest milk consumption in the EEC countries. We have one of the best milk distribution systems not only in Europe but in the world. Even remote country areas in this nation have a door to door delivery of milk. In the Dublin area——

Mr. Haughey

By cow?

Mr. D'Arcy

No, by car and in bottles. That is correct.

Mr. Bruton

Perhaps not on the islands but on the mainland.

Mr. D'Arcy

On the mainland. In the Dublin area any householder can ring up his local dairy order whatever milk he requires and have it delivered at practically whatever time he wishes. We have one of the best milk distribution systems not only in the EEC but perhaps in the world. Even in remote areas that may be as far as 20 miles from a depot milk is delivered in bottles. That is one of the reasons for so much milk being consumed, but it is unfair for the Minister to say that we are consuming too much milk. Another reason for so much milk being consumed is that we are a milk-producing country. We should encourage milk production and also milk consumption and you, as Minister for Health——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Minister in the third person through the Chair.

Mr. D'Arcy

I have not yet become used to debating here.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is doing very well.

Mr. D'Arcy

It is good that the Minister is emphasising the importance of preserving the health of the community but he should have regard, too, to the importance of making milk available to children in order that they may be healthy in the first instance. We are told that a consumption of 44 gallons per head of the community is the maximum capacity.

Mr. Haughey

I was not categorical about that.

Mr. D'Arcy

I would disagree with that figure. From my contact with schools I am aware of the demand there is for the type of scheme we are advocating. The previous speaker referred to a situation to which I have drawn attention on numerous occasions, a situation that I have heard the principal of a large school refer to within the past six months, that is, the question of children leaving for school either without a breakfast or having had a very poor breakfast. That may not be the fault of the children but of the parents. This is a situation relating to deprived families and is something that the Minister should bear in mind. In referring to this matter Deputy Bruton mentioned a figure of 3 or 4 per cent, but the situation is much worse than that. A survey of which I am aware showed that because of children from remote areas having to leave home very early in the morning and because of other social factors, the figure is as high as 25 per cent. The Minister may shake his head, but as Chairman of the VEC in Wexford and as a member of two school boards I have a fair knowledge of the situation. With the co-operation of teachers in the schools a survey was taken quietly and this revealed that up to 25 per cent of children start the day either without a breakfast or having had a very poor breakfast.

I am convinced that if the scheme as presented by the EEC were offered to all schools it would be availed of to the extent of about 90 per cent. Parents are demanding of every school board that there be some facilities provided for hot meals especially during the winter months.

Mr. Haughey

We are talking about milk.

Mr. D'Arcy

It should be possible to provide children with hot milk, but there could be facilities also for providing yoghourt for instance. Included in the EEC scheme also is a proposition for the grant-aiding of equipment.

Mr. Haughey

That is so.

Mr. D'Arcy

The type of equipment is not specified but presumably what is in mind are facilities for heating milk and also equipment for preserving milk and yoghourt. There is equipment, too, for making chocolate.

Mr. Haughey

In schools?

Mr. D'Arcy

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

Who would operate the equipment?

Mr. D'Arcy

Who operates the equipment that is to be found in some schools? The principals are responsible for it. In the majority of schools there are facilities for heating water or milk or for making soup, and during the break there is always a teacher in charge of that aspect of food. Presumably all schools have electricity, so that there would be no problem about extending the type of hot drinks available. For instance sweetened milk can be bought in large jars.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 April 1978.