asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will give a list of all the hospitals and charitable institutions to which rationed butter was supplied; and if he will state whether this practice no longer obtains and, if so, the date on which the decision to change this practice was made and what justification there is for such action in regard to organisations which supply both cheap and free meals to the poor, and if he will explain the necessity for stopping supplies to these institutions while butter is being exported.
- Hospitals' Butter Supplies.
All hospitals and charitable institutions may still purchase butter at the subsidised price, up to the amounts represented by the butter registration pages which have been lodged with the head of the institution.
When, in the summer of this year, butter at the unsubsidised price became freely available the grounds disappeared for giving special allowances to hospitals and charitable institutions. To continue the allowances would have been equivalent to paying a subscription out of voted moneys to the institutions.
No limit is placed on the amount of butter that may be purchased at the unsubsidised price, and the supplies available are sufficient for all purposes. The fact that butter is being exported has not created any scarcity.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary is it the fact that hitherto subsidised butter was supplied to certain institutions, including hospitals, and that that has now been withdrawn and the Parliamentary Secretary has given a lot of reasons why they can get plenty of butter at the unsubsidised price. I also asked could he explain why institutions which previously provided free or cheap meals for the poor are now being asked to subsidise the poor because butter previously available to them is now withheld from them.
The Deputy will appreciate that when the extra allowances of butter were made available the ration was lower. Since then the ration of subsidised butter to which they are entitled has been increased. They are now entitled to an increased ration of subsidised butter and, over and above that, they can purchase butter at the unsubsidised price.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary stating that these institutions to which he has referred are permitted to buy for their purposes subsidised rationed butter or is he agreeing that it is now withdrawn because the ration has been increased and they are not getting any at the subsidised price? I have asked him to explain why patients going into hospitals now must bring their butter ration card with them and then they will get the butter ration, but the hospitals will get none for them otherwise?
I do not know whether the Deputy heard the first part of the reply. All hospitals and charitable institutions can purchase butter at the subsidised price to the amount represented by the butter registration pages which have been lodged.
Of the patients?
Yes. Previously the ration was lower.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that delicate persons in hospitals sometimes get a little extra butter and that the hospitals previously provided that out of subsidised butter? That is now being stopped. The purpose of the question is to ask why we should stop giving subsidised butter to the poorer sections of sick people in the community?
It is not being stopped. I do not know whether the Deputy understands that every person in a hospital or charitable institution is entitled to a ration of eight ounces of subsidised butter. That is more than they got in recent years. If, over and above that, they still require further supplies, then they are expected to pay the economic price for the butter.
Am I to take it that charitable institutions and hospitals which previously were able to get butter for their purposes at the subsidised price can still get it or that there has been a change and they must now buy the unrationed butter at the non-subsidised price?
I do not know that I can make myself any clearer. When the Deputy reads the reply he may understand it better.