Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 13 December 2016
295. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Social Protection if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the school canteen is closed in a school (details supplied) and that hot meals are no longer being served to the children after 40 years of unbroken service; the steps he will take to ensure that the hot meal service is resumed as a matter of urgency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39595/16]
View answerAs the Deputy will be fully aware the school meals programme provides funding towards the provision of food services to schools and organisations at a cost of €42 million in 2016. There are two schemes operated under the school meals programme. The first is the school meals local projects scheme through which funding is provided directly to participating schools and local and voluntary community groups who run their own school meals projects. The second scheme is the urban school meals scheme which is operated by local authorities and part-financed by my Department.
The school in question has participated in the school meals local projects scheme since 2002 providing a breakfast and a homework club up to and including the last academic year. For the current academic year the school applied to run a breakfast and a lunch club and their application has been approved. The application was received on 5 December 2016 and funding for the current academic year has been significantly increased over that in the previous year from some €11,500 to €43,000.
Department officials have been advised that the hot meals supplied previously by the school were supplied by Dublin City Council and was administered with the aid of community employment (CE) staff.
Schools are not permitted to sponsor CE schemes and CE participants cannot be employed by schools to work in areas that are directly related to the schools. In 2014, my Department became aware that CE participants were working in this school and subsequently advised the local sponsor of their obligations with regard to the placement of participants. It is understood that an agreement was reached between the sponsor and the school in 2014 to put an exit strategy in place whereby the participants would be left in the school for an appropriate period to afford the school the opportunity to put the necessary arrangements in place. In late October 2016, my Department was advised that the Sponsor Board of the CE scheme had decided to withdraw the final CE Participant from the School. This CE position cannot be re-instated.
It is a matter for the school to determine how the provision of this service continues to be resourced. I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
