Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 1957

Vol. 48 No. 9

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1957—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

As I said in the Dáil, the purposes of this Bill are, firstly, to provide for the continuance of powers in relation to certain miscellaneous social welfare schemes which were conferred on local authorities by three Emergency Powers Orders made under the Supplies and Services Acts, which are due to expire on the 31st December next, and secondly, to remove doubts which have arisen in the interpretation of the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930.

The social welfare schemes concerned are the cooked meals scheme, the cheap fuel scheme and the public assistance footwear scheme. In relation to the cooked meals scheme I should explain that, to meet the possibility of the dislocation of essential services, the Government decided in 1941 to invest county borough corporations with power to establish emergency food centres either directly or in association or by arrangement with any other person or body. The Emergency Powers (No. 109) Order, 1941, was made accordingly. The Order has been used in Dublin and Limerick as the authority for payments by the corporations concerned to voluntary bodies to assist them in providing meals for poor persons. There is no cost to the Exchequer, the subsidies being borne entirely by the local authorities, but the Minister's sanction is necessary to the operation of any scheme. It is proposed to continue the powers contained in the Emergency Powers Order substantially unchanged and Section 2 of the Bill provides accordingly.

Turning now to Section 4 of the Bill. The cheap fuel scheme was introduced as an emergency measure in 1942, when fuel was scarce, to ensure that fuel would be available at a low price to poor people in areas then classified as non-turf areas. The service is operated in 16 cities and towns mainly on the eastern seaboard. A modified service is operated in Limerick City. The amount voted for the current year is £161,750 and there will be no increase in this amount as a result of the proposed legislation.

Certain of the powers given to local authorities in Emergency Powers (No. 108) Order, 1941, and (No. 310) Order, 1944, are necessary for the operation of this service. The No. 108 Order empowers county councils and urban authorities to acquire, fell, transport, use, sell and dispose of timber. Article 18 of the No. 310 Order empowers them to purchase, sell or dispose of turf. It is proposed to continue these powers for urban authorities as provided in Section 4 of the Bill.

The public assistance footwear scheme is operated by public assistance authorities under the Public Assistance (Footwear Regulations) Order, 1944, made under the Public Assistance Act, 1939. The scheme, which was initiated in 1944, was designed to ensure that a proportion of the leather then available would be utilised for footwear for children up to the age of 16 years, whose parents or guardians were in receipt of home assistance, or were deemed by the public assistance authorities to be unable to provide footwear for their children.

The Emergency Powers (No. 351) Order, 1945, provides safeguards relating to inspection, sale, purchase and use of the special footwear manufactured for the scheme and also for penalties for abuse. In practice, it has not been found necessary for many years to utilise any of these powers, other than that of inspection which has, in general, prevented abuse of the scheme. It is considered necessary, therefore, to continue only the powers of inspection by inspectors appointed by the Minister and by the public assistance authorities and the associated penalty for obstruction and these are provided for in Section 5 of the Bill. No extra cost is involved in the proposed provision.

Reverting now to Section 3 of the Bill as regards the school meals scheme operated by urban authorities under the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930, in general, the Act is designed to provide for the supply of school meals on a contributory or repayment basis, but provision is made for remitting part or all of the cost where the parents are unable to pay and for supplying meals free of charge to children who are unable, by reason of lack of food, to benefit from the education provided for them. Since the inception of the service, as far back as 1914 the schemes have been operated mainly on the free-of-charge basis, the cost of the food being met out of the rates in the first instance. However, certain doubts have arisen as to the propriety of this procedure following the consideration of questions raised by the Committee of Public Accounts in relation to the Appropriation Accounts for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54.

Section 3 of the Bill proposes to set this matter right by amending the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930, so as to place beyond doubt the right of local authorities to continue to operate non-contributory school meal schemes under Section 3 of the Act of 1914 and to defray the cost of preparing the meals. Provision is also made to regularise expenditure in previous years on the cost of preparing the meals.

Mr. Donegan

The statement by the Parliamentary Secretary is interesting and informative for one reason and one reason only. It defines Government policy with regard to these measures which unfortunately are so necessary. It is a fact that the poor will be always with us and every Government, and indeed every local authority, have a moral responsibility to take measures such as are envisaged in the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary.

At this stage in the economic development of the State the situation has developed that these poor people have been left in a worse position than that they were in previously. We have seen the abolition of the food subsidies. While it would not be right for me to discuss the rights or wrongs of that decision on this measure, the results of that action impinge on these poor people. It is my belief that the increases in social welfare benefits and public assistance that were made were not in fact large enough to compensate poor persons for the loss of the food subsidies. While people in a better off position eat less bread and butter, the people benefiting from many of these schemes eat more bread and butter. They would not be compensated by the slight increase made in social welfare benefits.

We have been clearly informed now of two things—firstly, that the Government does not intend to increase by one penny piece the amounts of money devoted to these schemes and secondly, that the Government does not intend to help the local authorities—and they are in a dreadful position with rates rising to an extraordinarily high level year by year—in their responsibility to provide for these people. Running right through the Parliamentary Secretary's statement we get references such as that contained in the second paragraph which deals with the cooked meals scheme:—

"There is no cost to the Exchequer, the subsidies being borne entirely by the local authorities, but the Minister's sanction is necessary to the operation of any scheme."

I put it to the House that the moral duty of the Government at present is to accept some responsibility for this scheme. With rates rocketing as they are, it is a fact that when we on local authorities sit down at our estimates meeting and discuss how we shall spend the money available to us, we find that, much as we would like to do it, we cannot meet our moral responsibilities. Therefore, if a major Government decision of not so long ago has impinged on these poor people, the Government has a moral responsibility, having taken the previous decision, to see to it that these people are compensated and that they are as well off as they were before the removal of the subsidies.

I come now to the third paragraph of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, which verifies the statement I made when I rose to speak. I am referring to the paragraph about the cheap fuel scheme. I quote:—

"People know that the amount voted for the current year is £160,750 and there will be no increase in this amount as a result of this proposed legislation."

In other words, there is to be no increase for these poor people who are now finding it much harder to get fuel than they did prior to the removal of the food subsidies. I am not discussing the rights or wrongs of the removal of the food subsidies, but I am discussing the moral responsibility of the Government to stand up to something that impinges on these people as a result of the Government's major decision.

The following paragraph refers to the purchase, sale and disposal of turf. The Minister stated elsewhere, and he is quite correct, that the provision of turf and timber for this type of person is largely carried out in the eastern counties where there is not a natural fuel supply to which these people can have recourse. It is, however, a fact that the quality of turf supplied is very bad. I do not know if all the bad turf is kept for these poor people. I do not know if it is a fact that, when the Government harvests turf, it does not do so as well as the private supplier or cutter, but I do know there have been serious complaints in the towns of Drogheda and Dundalk, for which I can speak.

We should impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that he should take the most stringent measures, and address himself most energetically to this problem. There is no use in giving unfortunate people a ticket for a bag of turf which has a moisture content of 75 or 80 per cent.

I come now to the paragraph referring to Section 3 of the Bill and I quote:—

"Since the inception of the service, as far back as 1914 the schemes have been operated mainly on the free-of-charge basis, the cost of the food being met out of the rates in the first instance."

I want to submit again that in respect of this scheme it is impossible for the local authorities to continue as they have been doing to put up all that money, and I have given the reason why—the increase in the cost of living to these poor people as a result of the removal of the food subsidies, and the moral responsibility of the Government to provide these people with these schemes.

Again in Section 3, we find the local authorities are again asked to continue the school meals scheme and Section 3, as the Parliamentary Secretary states:

"Proposes to set this matter right by amending the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930, so as to place beyond doubt the right of local authorities to continue to operate non-contributory school meal schemes under Section 3 of the Act of 1914 and to defray the cost of preparing the meals."

The rates in this country are mounting day by day. The Health Act, which we cannot discuss here to-night, placed an extraordinary load upon the rates. Every ten shillings spent under the Health Act means 5/- upon the rates of local authorities. In such a situation, local authorities can no longer bear these schemes. I want to impress my view, and the view of the political Party I represent, on the Government and Parliamentary Secretary that there is a moral responsibility on him to do more than he has said he is going to do to-night.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I think this Bill is one to be welcomed. I think I am right in saying that the necessity for portion of it at any rate became evident arising out of the evidence given to the Committee of Public Accounts for the Appropriation Accounts, 1953-54. I would refer Senators to that report and in particular to pages 160 to 167 because it became apparent there, in particular in relation to school meals, that for a long time past the local authorities had quite clearly not got the full authority they required to carry out what they wanted in this regard. Neither had they any authority to apply a means test. I should like to stress the fact in relation to Section 2, sub-section (1), paragraph (c), that local authorities in relation to the provision of meals, other than meals in national schools, shall have power "to take such other steps as in their opinion are necessary for or incidental to the provision of meals". I take it these "steps" include the paying of labour. I understand one of the difficulties in the past was the paying of labour. All the local authorities could do was "provide food". There was no reference to the cost of preparing and distributing it.

Sub-section (3) of Section 2 states:—

"(3) The corporation of a county borough may charge such amounts as they think proper for meals provided by them under this section."

I should like to ask the Minister if this means that the question of charging various amounts to different people will be in accordance with their means. Can the local authorities under this sub-section apply a means test or can they not? I do not think it is quite clear from the wording of that section whether or not they can apply a means test.

I would like to quote from the minutes of the evidence given before the Committee of Public Accounts to which I have already referred. Mr. Keady who was called and examined stated "there was no power in the Act to prescribe any means test or any contribution because the regulations could only be made for the purpose of the adequacy of the scheme". It emerged then for the first time clearly that local authorities had not got power to do something that in fact they had been doing for a long time. I should like to hear the Minister's comment on these activities. Has it been considered necessary to take any retrospective steps in that regard?

Mr. Keady further stated "our legal adviser is also adviser to the Department of Health and Local Government and has been familiar with this problem for a number of years past". I feel that that is rather disquieting. That problem was there for a very long time past without being officially adverted to. That is why I welcome this particular Act, because action is at last being taken. Mr. Keady further stated "we have a section of an Act which is of doubtful validity and which it is impossible to work". It is to clear up that kind of situation that this Bill is being brought up to date to-day.

The witness also, in paragraph 1189, stated: "I do not take that to mean lack of food due to financial stringency in the home but lack of food due to too long a period between meals." Here is something about school meals which is not covered by this particular Bill, and it is a point upon which I should like to make some comment—the question that a child may not have enough food, not because of necessitousness, not because it is too poor, but because of the interval of time between meals rendered necessary by certain school hours being too long. In some schools it had been the practice—I understand it has been largely abandoned—to give the children their school meal at 3.30 p.m. when they were going home, which frequently meant the food was thrown around on the roads. That is the kind of thing which goes to make for waste of food.

We are familiar in Dublin with quite a lot of controversy as to whether the children should get an interval during which they can go home for their dinner and then go back to school. That is a much debated point. Some parents feel very strongly that they would prefer their children to be kept, if necessary, a little longer in school and let home finally, not having to go back, particularly in wet weather, where obviously it could be bad for health, and so on. Parents also complain sometimes that the school hours in boys and girls' schools are different, as well as different from the hour at which the husband may get his meal. Consequently a good deal of inconvenience, not to say danger to health, is caused by failure properly to organise these school meals.

The point I should like to make is that what ought ideally to be provided, and that for which local authorities ought to use the powers given to them by this Bill, is the provision normally in these big city schools of a hot sit-down school meal in the middle of the day. That would obviate the necessity for these children to rush home in any weather in order to grab a quick meal and rush back to school again, perhaps getting wet, for another hour or two at school.

I am sometimes told that if you give a hot school meal to primary school children it will "break up family life". That seems to me to be quite ridiculous. We are familiar with large boarding schools for secondary school children, boys and girls. They, in their respective schools, spend two-thirds of their lives away from home in big boarding schools—not just an hour for a meal in the middle of the day. They spend two-thirds of their lives in these boarding schools, taking all their meals there and sleeping away from home, without any suggestion that, for these better-off children, family life is destroyed by the very concept of the big boarding school. Therefore, I regard it as disingenuous, to put it mildly, to suggest that if children in a primary school were given a hot meal in the middle of the day it would break up their family life.

I should like to take the opportunity, on the passing of this Bill, which gives local authorities more clearly defined powers in this regard, to urge more school managers and more local authorities to consider the advisability of providing a reasonably good sit-down hot meal for children in the middle of the day. I would regard that as of advantage to their health. I would regard it as of advantage to their frequently harassed parents at home, and also, I think, of advantage to them socially, in that the schooling, the training, the discipline and so on in connection with the meal might frequently be every bit as important as the general social training given to them in connection with class-work.

My final point is connected with what I have just been saying. I want to quote from paragraph 1198, page 163, of the very same report in which the same official witness says: "The main cause of waste was that the food was unpalatable, particularly for the younger children." I am afraid that is the case. Somebody may say: "I will give them a cheese sandwich and one-third of a pint of milk per child. Every child should like it and, if they do not, it is the fault of their families," and so on. That is not the way to make young children like food. Many of us here have an intimate knowledge of the likes and dislikes of young children in regard to food. You cannot just throw cheese sandwiches and milk at them and say: "There is one-third of a pint of milk and a cheese sandwich. Eat the sandwich and gulp the milk down, and like it."

I should like to feel that local authorities are increasingly aware of this problem, namely, that the main cause of waste is that the food is unpalatable, particularly for the younger children. There has been some talk of the cost to the rates and so on. Nobody desires to see the rates going up for no purpose at all, but, if there is any purpose for which there is a justification for increased expenditure that should not meet with opposition, it is for the purpose of giving all our schoolchildren, and particularly the poorer children, better meals, better nutrition at all times. I think that that is the main purpose of this Bill, and for that reason I think it will be generally supported in this House.

Mr. Carter

Senator Donegan implied that this Bill was brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas because of the removal of the food subsidies and the increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Donegan

On a point of explanation, I did not say what Senator Carter says I said. What I did say was that the emergence of this Bill at this stage clarified the intentions of the Government and that the removal of the food subsidies had created a situation where a change was necessary.

Mr. Carter

I am sorry if I have misquoted the Senator. I read into his speech the implication that it was because of the increased cost, resulting from the withdrawal of the food subsidies, that this Bill was introduced. I wish to make a few brief remarks on the Bill. The school meals scheme has got nothing whatever to do with the removal of food subsidies or the increase in the cost of living. The Bill, I understand, was introduced to remove some doubts which had arisen regarding powers contained in the parent and subsequent Acts. As this matter regarding the provision of school meals arose during the period in which I served on the Committee of Public Accounts, I wish to touch on some points, the first being that experience teaches and the second that laws made for another country are not always workable here. The deductions one might draw are that the School Meals Acts were framed in different times and different circumstances, being based on the principle of voluntary effort.

The idea of school meals came about in England during a period of hard industrial endeavour. It was intended to help the children of parents engaged in factory work from dawn till dark. It took into consideration the fact that parents who were away from home all day might not be in a position, apart from poverty, to provide a midday meal for their children. In the autumn of 1914 the British Parliament decided to apply the Act to Ireland. It was then known as the Education (Provision of Meals) Act. It provided that local authorities should pay for the food for school meals within strict limits.

Later, around 1916, the limit was raised and in 1917 further regulations followed. In examining the accounts for 1951-52—I am subject to correction in this—the Comptroller and Auditor-General raised the question of the cost of the scheme. Deputy Sheldon was then Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts and, owing to his research, it was subsequently discovered that not only were the regulations bad but that the legislation on which they were based was, if not bad, highly confusing. In the interval, the Committee, after a good deal of debate, decided to press for further consideration on the matter and this Bill would appear to have been brought in to meet their wishes.

All I want to say in conclusion is that, whatever regulations the Parliamentary Secretary may have in mind, it is to be hoped that he will insist on a standard that will provide a suitable type of meal. I feel sure, on the other hand, that this legislation is not to be taken as providing a standard which would involve the provision of children's dinners in schools. This is merely supplementary, if you like, because in both Houses of the Oireachtas we subscribe to the view that the proper place to provide children with dinners is in their homes. I would remind Senator Sheehy Skeffington that the architect of the welfare state, Lord Beveridge, has gone back to work at 70 years of age.

Mr. Cole

There are one or two points to which I should like the Minister to refer when he is replying. The first is in regard to the provision of free meals in national schools. I have not read the 1914 Act, but there is now a substitution of words from that Act in this measure—", notwithstanding anything contained in Section 1 or Section 2 of this Act, authorised them to provide free of charge, or to meet the whole or part of the cost of the provision free of charge of, meals for those children attending that school". I do not know whether this is the proper place in which to discuss the provision of meals free of charge. Even if there was a charge of only 1d. a day, 5d. a week, I think it would eliminate this idea of getting something for nothing. Giving children something for nothing so early in life may give them the idea later of getting things free of charge. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could enlarge on that point of view.

Section 4 deals with the cheap fuel scheme and refers to timber and turf. Is there some reason why coal is not mentioned in the section? We have schools situated in areas where there are coal mines and in fact numerous council houses are now provided with ranges which burn coal.

I should like to refer to the footwear scheme. The definition of footwear in Section 5 is: "Boots or shoes manufactured for the purpose of distribution in accordance with the footwear Order." I believe that there will be complaints always about articles provided officially. I have heard many complaints about official footwear. I do not know whether there is any truth in those complaints. There is a suggestion that the quality of the leather put into official boots and shoes may not be as good as it should be by reason of the fact that such footwear is bound to be sold. The recipients of vouchers and coupons must buy a certain type of boot or shoe; they may not buy any type of boot or shoe.

The only other comment I should like to make is again in relation to school meals. I thoroughly agree with Senator Donegan that school meals should not be made a burden on rates, particularly in rural areas where children attending national schools do not benefit by the scheme. Many children must walk three miles to school and yet do not get meals in those schools. Admittedly there are no facilities in such schools for the provision of meals but I think it is most unfair that the parents of these children should be obliged to pay, through rates, part of the cost of the scheme. Surely it should be a charge on the Central Fund. I would urge the Minister to consider putting the cost of these things on the Central Fund instead of on the rates.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I hold the view that any money spent on school meals is a good insurance policy and that, since health is the nation's wealth, it is good business as has been proved by the health statistics in relation to children here in Dublin. In Dublin, as far as we can gather, about 40,000 pupils benefit through this scheme. The cost is about £140,000 a year of which 50 per cent. is provided by the Government. There is no means test because it would be impossible, apart from anything else, to operate it. I am afraid there seems to be some misunderstanding about what exactly school meals are. Senator Sheehy Skeffington referred to the desirability of having hot meals in schools in cities. Unfortunately there are only very few schools equipped for the provision of hot meals.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

More is the pity.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It would take a tremendous reconstruction programme to bring about that desirable objective. In case there are any misunderstandings about what a typical school meal in Dublin consists of I may say it consists of a sandwich, the full round of a fine substantial sandwich—the sort one could pay at least 9d. for in certain hostelries—and one-third of a pint of first-class milk with plenty of cream on the top of the bottle. Far from the food being unpalatable, as Senator Sheehy Skeffington seemed to infer, I should like to give the House a typical menu for the week in these schools: a sandwich on two days, a substantial sandwich of minced beef on two days and on another day they get cheese. I am afraid Senator Sheehy Skeffington seemed to imply the cheese was being given out every day.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

On a point of personal explanation when I said "unpalatable" I was quoting from a representative of the Department of Social Welfare before the Committee on Public Accounts.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Well "unpalatable" does not seem to be the view of the children who eat these sandwiches.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Perhaps they have improved.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

These have been the types of sandwiches for quite some time; I checked up on them. That is the menu: minced beef for two days, cheese for one day, strawberry jam sandwich one day and a large currant bun on one day. They were getting cheese sandwiches on two days a week but the children seemed to prefer a change in the form of a currant bun and they get it, substituted for the cheese, on one day. In case any Senators believe that this is the only food the children get during the day, it might be well to remind them that most mothers supplement this sandwich with an apple or an extra piece of bread and jam and these supplements are welcomed by the teacher and are a great help. Lest some Senators think that mothers are negligent in their duty in this respect I may say that they are not. There is hardly one child coming to the schools here in Dublin who is not equipped with a supplementary ration in the form of the things I have mentioned.

The result of that school meal, small though it may be, is a great improvement in the health of the children. If one speaks to teachers, particularly in what were once slum quarters, one will be told that there is now very little vermin, rickets or impetigo, from which they used suffer in former days. The school meals have been a great help. That is why I say there is no doubt whatever, to my mind at any rate, that any money spent on them is money well spent. I think it is also only right that tribute should be paid to the teachers for their supervision of these meals and also to the caterers and to the delivery staff for the high quality of the food provided and for the excellent service and expeditious delivery about which I have not found any complaints.

There is one difficulty that I have come across and it seems to be in connection with the provision made by the corporation to tighten up the expenditure and to avoid waste in connection with the scheme. As the delivery is made to the school before roll-call in the morning, the supply of sandwiches and milk must be based on the attendance in that school on the previous day. The result of that is that if more children turn up on that day than turned up the previous day they may have to go short. The alternative left to the teacher is to divide some of the sandwiches and milk and that is not a very satisfactory method and not a very fair task to give to the teacher. In connection with that, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into it to see if there is any possibility of finding a remedy for the situation which does occur at regular intervals in some schools, by reason of the necessity for early delivery of sandwiches and milk.

I do not think there is anything more that I can say on the school meals portion of this Bill, but in connection with the cheap fuel scheme I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explore the possibility of delivering fuel to old age pensioners living alone in rooms in the cities. I have come across some of them and many of them are unable to carry their hundredweight of turf. They have to get a boy to do so and they have to give him a few pence, usually 6d., to carry the turf to their room. That, with the price of turf, is something that should not be continued if there is any way out of it. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to ascertain if there is any way in which old people living alone and who are unable to collect the turf themselves could have facilities for free delivery. I welcome this Bill very much and congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on it.

In connection with the free footwear scheme, the only complaint that I heard—and I understand there are about 79,000 people who benefit as a result of it—was not of the alleged inferior leather but that the type of boot or shoe was too heavy for schoolgirls. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of the suggestions made in connection with this and that he may find a solution to the points I have mentioned.

Mrs. Dowdall

I should like to add my voice in praise of the Parliamentary Secretary for this Bill and to follow up what Senator Mullins said about the delivery of the free fuel to the old age pensioners. In Cork we have tried to get this done but the manager had neither the authority nor the money to do so. There is no point in going into details about the sad plight of people who have to drag their fuel up the stairs but I should like to answer Senator Donegan who spoke about the poor quality of the fuel. He should do his duty and see that the local authority advertises only for machine-won turf and that the people entitled to this fuel get only machine-won turf. We do that. We get only the best fuel and the quality of the fuel supplied is the responsibility of the local authority.

Senator Ó Maoláin made an extremely good case in regard to the school meals. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take to heart what he said and encourage other local authorities to carry out the scheme as done in Dublin for the benefit of the children. May I again say that if the Parliamentary Secretary could make monetary arrangements to have the fuel delivered to the old age pensioners, it would make such a difference to them? We would be fulfilling a duty which, I think, we have to those old people.

Mr. Kennedy

The sole purpose of this Bill is to provide for a continuance of powers contained in certain Emergency Powers Orders made under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Acts which are due to expire at the end of this year. This Bill was first drafted two years ago and it would have been introduced long ago but for the continuation of the Supplies and Services Act. The opportunity was taken in this Bill to clear up doubts raised in regard to the school meals.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington referred to that when he spoke on Section 3 and about the keenness and ability, particularly of the Public Accounts Committee, in focussing attention on this: We could supply food but we could not provide the way of preparing the food. Senator Carton referred to the work of Deputy Sheldon. I hope I have clarified the point Senator Sheehy Skeffington made.

In regard to the cooked meals, they are operated only in Dublin and Limerick and the Government is not bound in any way to have them. The powers are permissive and apply to the local authority. The Limerick people, I think, pay for the gas that cooks the meals which the voluntary body provides. In Dublin, the Catholic Charities Organisation spend a sum, in addition to their own, which the corporation gives them as a contribution.

The school meals scheme is a very involved matter. Senator Ó Maoláin and Senator Sheehy Skeffington went into it in detail. It involves catering for children whose day is broken and catering for those who stay in school all day. It has been a very difficult problem and my Department has been in touch with the corporation and certain suggestions were made to them. In order to secure more effective and economical administration, it is considered that the following action should be taken. In schools operating the two-part day, the meal should be served not later than 11.30 a.m.; in other schools, the meals should be served not later than 12.30 p.m. The system of rotation in certain schools, under which a section of the pupils receive no meal each day, should cease, and where meat sandwiches are not acceptable to many pupils, they should be withdrawn and be substituted by bread and butter or jam.

There is a difference of opinion between Senator Ó Maoláin and Senator Sheehy Skeffington on that, but, by and large, the experience is that the children prefer bread and jam. We have come across cases where they threw away sandwiches. There may be an explanation for that. When the children get a meal after 11.30 a.m. and then go home, they are inclined to throw the sandwich away. Children will do that.

We have also tried to make milk, not alone in Dublin but throughout the country, the basis of the meal. In places it is difficult to get milk. We are constantly in touch with these bodies and the very useful suggestions made by Senator Ó Maoláin and Senator Sheehy Skeffington and the others who contributed to the debate will be borne in mind in our dealings with this problem in the Department.

Senator Cole referred to paying for the meals. There is nothing to prevent a charge being made. The charge may be made or it may not be made. We do not directly operate the scheme and the local authorities operate it beyond their contribution. If we had not the co-operation of the teachers and managers, the scheme would fall to the ground. We leave them more or less to their own discretion in administering the scheme. It is improving each year and, as Senator Ó Maoláin said, it is giving great satisfaction, particularly to children who might not have a proper nutritious breakfast going to school. It helps them with their lessons to get this meal. We provided in the Estimates what we considered was sufficient money to meet these schemes.

In relation to the footwear scheme, we get the best leather possible put into the boots. I have here the particulars in relation to the cost. The boots are stamped "C.P." With regard to footwear sizes 7 to 10 suitable for age groups three to seven, the original cost, when we started the scheme, was 10/6. It is now 20/6. With regard to footwear sizes 11 to 1 suitable for age groups seven to ten, the original cost was 13/- and it is now 23/11. Footwear sizes 2 to 5 suitable for age groups ten to 13 cost originally 14/2, the present cost being 27/9. The original cost of footwear sizes 6 to 7 suitable for age groups 13 to 16 was 16/- and it is now 31/6.

The total number of vouchers issued last year that we have an account of is 79,234. There are inspections to see that cheaper boots are not substituted and to ensure that, when a voucher is given to a recipient, boots are given to the children and that the money is not spent on other things for the household. By and large, we have had very few complaints. In fact we have not had complaints about the quality of the boots for years; they seem to be highly satisfactory. There were complaints in the Dáil, however, about a rule-of-thumb method of distribution— first come first served. There is a good deal of truth in that complaint and we have got in touch with local authorities and told them to examine all the applicants and give the most needy first preference. In that way we shall improve the scheme.

I have dealt with cooked meals. That service is entirely voluntary and is administered principally in Dublin and Limerick. The Bill deals with what I would describe as urban school meals. It deals with the cheap fuel scheme also. I am surprised at keen people, like the people of County Meath, allowing in inferior turf. It is not let in anywhere else. Only the best Bord na Móna turf is accepted elsewhere.

With regard to Senator Cole's point about letting in coal, Government policy has been to encourage turf production and to help turf production. Our main coal production is anthracite. There may be a point in what the Senator says about stoves now being capable of dealing with anthracite. We will bear that in mind, but I am not promising the Senator anything because that would apply to a very limited area, mainly North Kilkenny and Leitrim.

We deliver turf in home help cases. Senator Mullins spoke about old age pensioners and Senator Mrs. Dowdall supported his contention. We are very, very "cagey" in this respect. We have our doubts as to the manner in which we could do it and whether or not there might not be abuses as a result of which the old age pensioners might suffer. Senator Mrs. Dowdall comes from a city which has set a headline in the administration of the school meals scheme. The voluntary effort in Cork has been absolutely wonderful. I would like voluntary organisations to take this matter up; if voluntary charitable organisations in Cork, Limerick, Dublin and elsewhere would face this problem we would not be slow in giving them financial assistance to administer the delivery of fuel to old age pensioners. That is all I can say at the moment on that subject.

I have covered the various points that have been made. If a complaint is made about bad boots, all the parent has to do is write to us and we shall insist immediately on an exchange. That has been the rule all along. As I have said, there have been very few complaints since the inception of the scheme.

This Bill consolidates a number of matters formerly covered by emergency powers legislation and it resolves doubts about the legality of the administration of the various schemes included in it.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.

Bill put through Committee; reported without amendment; received for final consideration, and passed.