Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 6 Dec 1977

Vol. 302 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate: School Milk Scheme.

Perhaps the best way to begin would be by quoting from the EEC Council regulation, No. 1080 of 17th May, 1977 which states that from the start of the 1977-78 milk year the Community shall contribute for a period of at least five years to financing member states programmes for supplying milk and certain milk products at reduced prices to school children. The implication of that is that this money has been available to this and other Government since 1st May, 1977. The details of the way the money could be made available were set out in considerable depth in the Council regulation from which I am quoting of 17th May and in a subsequent regulation of 15th July.

These make it clear first, that it is a five-year programme and that the money will be there in the future. This means a decision will have to be taken by the Government at some stage. Secondly, they make it clear that it is a flexible scheme and it is open to the Government to give aid towards the cost of procuring the necessary equipment, if that is a problem, to provide the milk or milk products in the various schools. They make it clear that the aid from the EEC will be equal to 50 per cent of the target price of milk. The regulation goes on to say that that would be approximately twice the contribution which would be expected from a member Government. For every £2 provided by the EEC, the Irish Government would apparently have to provide only £1. If ever there was an attractive scheme offered by the EEC that was one because most of them require the Irish Government to provide £1 for every 25p the Community provide. This scheme is the opposite, yet to date we have failed to avail of this.

The scheme is available not just in respect of whole milk, which may not be immediately attractive to all school children, but also in respect of chocolate flavoured whole milk products, yoghurts and a number of other products. It is clear that there can be something in this scheme for every child and for every taste.

It is also clear from the dating on which the money was available and from the dating of the regulation that if the Government had acted in time we could have had this scheme available in our schools from the beginning of the school year which commenced last September.

From May, 1977?

Go a little easy on that one.

The money could have been available for this school year. My first question is: why did the Government fail to ensure that this money would be available for milk and milk products from the beginning of the academic year? If I may be so bold, I will answer that question. The reason is that this Government could not make up their minds which Minister was responsible, or should be responsible, for introducing this scheme. I put down parliamentary questions to all the Ministers who could be conceivably involved and every Minister in reply to my written questions disclaimed direct responsibility for it.

It is not a sufficient excuse to say that the scheme, of its nature, is a complex one and that a number of Government Departments would or should be involved. Practically every Government decision or scheme involves more than one Department. It is the very essence of Cabinet Government that the Cabinet make the decision as to which Department shall have the lead role and enable the scheme to go ahead. It is very hard to find any excuse for the Government failing to make a decision in relation to this scheme.

First, it is a non-contentious issue. Nobody could be against the provision of school milk in principle. Second, there could be no political differences about the issue. Third, Ireland could only gain from the introduction of the scheme. If the Government cannot make up their minds which Department should be responsible, if they cannot make up their minds about an issue which is so simple and from which we can only gain, about what sort of issue can this Government make up their minds?

To underline the catalogue of indecision and paralysis in Government, we had the most unusual, if not unprecedented, spectacle of the Minister who is now in the House to answer this matter claiming last Thursday— after full notice having been given, a letter having been delivered personally by me to the Taoiseach the previous night, after a series of parliamentary questions, and after representations from various bodies concerned, dating back for months—that he was not responsible for the scheme but saying that the Minister for Agriculture was. I do not know why a difference of opinion on a matter like school milk should arise between the Minister for Health and Social Welfare and the Minister for Agriculture but, if they cannot agree about that, it must be very difficult to expect them to agree about other and more serious issues.

My second question is this: why did the Minister for Health and Social Welfare not accept responsibility for this matter last Thursday? Why did he not answer the debate then? I hope when he rises he will be announcing that he is introducing this scheme. The House should ask itself this question: were it not for the persistent parliamentary questions I put down, or for the fact that I raised this matter twice on the Adjournment, would we have had a decision this year, or any year, about the introduction of a school milk scheme?

What are the consequences of the failure of the Government to make up their minds on this issue? There are a number of technical issues which have to be overcome before such a scheme, which would obviously be beneficial to this country, can be introduced. First, there would have to be talks with the milk processors to ensure that the right sort of product is available for supplies in the schools. You would need a specialist type of product with a specialist form of dispensing of the product. Second, there would have to be talks with the school management board and teachers about the various arrangements for interposing the supply of milk in the normal school day. Have such talks taken place? I doubt it. If they have not, why not? If the Government had decided this matter long ago, or even if they had at least decided which Minister was responsible, these talks could now have been brought to a conclusion and we would be ready to go ahead straightaway.

The second consequence of this delay and indecision on the part of the Government is that the money, which could be coming to this country and which will go to other countries in respect of the current milk marketing year, is not and will not come to this country. France, Denmark and Britain are in a position to implement this scheme straightaway. I understand the regulations in Belgium for the implementation of this scheme have been published and a decision in principle has been taken in Holland to implement it.

The result is that all those countries will almost certainly obtain money in the 1977-78 milk marketing year for the provision of milk and milk products in their schools and it looks as if we will not get any money. If we do not, the Government's responsibility in the matter is clear. Money which would otherwise have come here will have been irrevocably lost as a result of the Government's indecision.

My last question is perhaps my most important one. Why should we have a school milk scheme? Why is it a good thing? This country, unlike many other countries, does not have a school meals service. We have such a service in some Dublin schools under the Departments of Health and Social Welfare, but we do not have a comprehensive school meal service. I believe there is a case for providing school meals, and certainly for providing school milk. Many children from deprived backgrounds, where perhaps the homes are broken up because of alcoholism or some other factor which diminishes the competence of the children, may go to school without a proper breakfast, or if they have a breakfast it consists of food not properly balanced from a dietary point of view. They will go into school where they will not get a school meal, or any sustenance during the day unless they have been provided with a packed lunch. If their parents were unable to provide them with an adequate breakfast, it is unlikely they will be provided with a packed lunch. The result is that many of these children will not be able to concentrate on their education and derive benefit from that education to the same extent as their peers who are adequately fed. This fact was recognised by the Department of Education when they introduced a school meal service in Rutland Street, a deprived part of this city. They recognised that the provision of food, or a food equivalent, during the day was an important factor in improving education.

The provision of a school milk service, as well as ensuring that the children from deprived backgrounds avail of adequate education, will also be of assistance to parents in defraying the amount of money that they would otherwise have to pay for other products in substitution for the milk that they would get under the scheme.

The second reason in favour of the introduction of the scheme is agriculture. We are a leading dairy producing country in the EEC. The dairy industry is a larger factor in our economy than it is in the economics of any other EEC countries. Therefore it is in our interests to be in the lead in any measure which will expand the consumption of milk in the Community. If this scheme were introduced it would add approximately three million gallons to the total amount of milk products being consumed here every year. We are already high per capita consumers of milk products and it is in our interests to try to persuade by example other EEC countries to raise their consumption of milk products. We cannot do this with conviction if we have to tell them that while money was made available to us to introduce a school milk scheme we failed to avail of the money. We cannot encourage other countries to consume more of our milk products unless we show the basis confidence in our own products when money is made available. This scheme is necessary. Will the Minister introduce it and, if so, when? If not, why not? Why has there been such a long delay in coming to a decision, which Minister is responsible, and will he say whether or not the scheme should be introduced?

When we had a similar situation previously in regard to a milk product, which was cheap butter for the social welfare classes, we had no difficulty in deciding how the scheme should be administered or which Minister would be responsible. The Minister for Agriculture is responsible for making the case for the scheme for Ireland, and the Department with the machinery for administering the scheme is the Department of Social Welfare. That should not have caused a problem. During my time we had the opportunity to discuss this in the EEC, and I made a very strong case for it for a number of reasons, most of which have been outlined by Deputy Bruton. One of the products I tried to get included was cheese, because cheese in a sandwich can be almost a full midday meal for children and it is something which would be very beneficial.

I know that the Minister is very anxious about the health of young people and is anxious to prevent disease before it starts. I hear people talking about "Charlie's health plan" and what it will do for the country. This is to the Minister's credit. This is a way in which the Minister could influence young people to use milk products in the quantity that they should be used. This is an excellent opportunity for which we are probably three-quarters paid.

Another aspect that convinced me that this was something we should look for and should accept as soon as it became available was this. We are well on the road to being qualified by the amount of money we already contribute for milk and school meals and it would take a comparatively small additional amount to be fully qualified to get a substantial extra sum of money for this country. It seems an extra-ordinary thing that for some reason we are hesitating about this. I hope that a final decision has not yet been made. I hope that the fact that we did not start this at the start of the school year is no reason that it cannot start after Christmas. I know that the Government have been extremely busy since they came to office and they may not have had time to look at the seriousness of this situation. As a result of this discussion and as a result of the feelings of the people generally I hope that after Christmas the Government and the Ministers concerned will decide that this is something we should have.

There is no difficulty about deciding which Minister should be responsible for introducing a scheme of this sort if a decision were taken to introduce it. Deputy Bruton is perhaps creating some doubt between myself and my colleagues as to which of us would have parliamentary responsibility for dealing with the matter on the adjournment. That is a completely different matter from deciding which Minister would introduce this scheme if it were to be introduced.

Who would bring the memo to the Government?

We would have no difficulty whatever in allocating responsibility for its introduction to a Minister of the Government. This scheme for the supply of milk and certain milk products at reduced prices to school children is only one of a number of schemes being considered by the EEC Commission to deal with surplus milk production in the Community. There is what is technically known as a co-responsibility levy on milk producers in the EEC. In our case that levy is .9p per gallon and, although that levy will go into a fund and that fund will be available for a number of schemes which are under consideration——

Could I ask the Minister a question?

This scheme is only being considered?

Deputy Bruton, the Minister without interruption. Deputy Bruton was not interrupted.

I want to find out if the Minister is saying that this scheme is only being considered?

There is a very limited time for this debate.

The Minister is wrong, it is in effect.

Deputy Bruton, please.

The manner in which the co-responsibility levy moneys are to be used is still under consideration by the Commission and the Government.

The scheme was introduced prior to——

Deputy Bruton, please. Nobody interrupted Deputy Bruton.

I am making a statement and, if Deputy Bruton chooses to misunderstand what I am saying and to contradict something that I am not saying, that is not good parliamentary behaviour. The manner in which the total fund arising from the co-responsibility levy is to be administered is still under consideration and it is quite possible that we will get back from the co-responsibility levy more moneys than we contributed, or at least as much, so that is not an argument relevant to the matter we are now discussing. This scheme which Deputy Bruton and Deputy Clinton are interested in would provide that the EEC would make a contribution for at least five years to financing a member state's programme for supplying milk and certain milk products at reduced prices to all school children. The amount of milk per pupil is limited and, except in certain specified circumstances, it will be confined to a quarter of a litre or .44 of a pint. The EEC contribution will be 50 per cent of the target price of milk, the national contribution would have to be at least 50 per cent of the EEC contribution and the balance would be chargeable to the school children. The EEC subsidy would come from the Feoga fund.

I suggest to Deputy Bruton and Deputy Clinton that they misunderstand the situation. This is not a very attractive scheme from our point of view. The retail price of milk here after the State subsidy of 3½p per pint is deducted is 8p and the EEC subsidy proposed under this scheme would be 3.8p per pint. The Commission then envisage that the balance of 4.2p per pint would be paid by the school children.

Let the Deputies be clear about that. I have no hesitation in saying that any scheme which would envisage school children paying 4.2p per pint of milk would not work. The money could not be collected and we could not ask the children to pay it. It would be a ridiculous scheme. If the children do not pay the only people left to pay it are the State. Therefore we will find the State in addition to the subsidy it is already giving, also paying 4.2p per pint of milk under this scheme. That would cost £6 million per year. I hope Deputy Bruton understands that. He is trying to give the impression that this is free milk coming from the EEC.

I said 50 per cent would be paid by the EEC.

It is nothing of the sort. The introduction of this scheme would involve us in paying out of the Exchequer £6 million per annum. I do not mind paying £6 million per annum out of the Exchequer if that is what we want and if that is the best way of spending that £6 million. As Minister for Social Welfare I am not prepared to say that if I can get an extra £6 million more from my colleague, the Minister for Finance, this is the way I would spend it. I do not think it would be very good value, and I believe my colleague, the Minister for Education, would say the same. If our colleague, the Minister for Finance, is prepared to make an extra £6 million available to us for any of our purposes, education, social welfare or health, I do not think that this is the way we would use it. The Deputies are very much mistaken when they try to persuade the House and the general public that this is very much an open and shut case and that all that is required is for us to say the word and we will get all the milk we want free from the EEC for the schools. That is not the position.

I did not say that.

The Deputy inferred that.

I did not.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Bruton please, the Minister is in possession. He has only three minutes to conclude.

At the moment under existing legislation any urban authority who want it have the power to provide a scheme for the supply of school meals—not merely milk—to any children attending a national school in their administrative area and there is a similar provision for Gaeltacht areas. Any urban authority in the country who want to do that may do it and we cannot turn them down. Any local authority has the statutory right to introduce such a scheme and it must be financed to the extent of 50 per cent by the Minister for Social Welfare and 50 per cent by the local authority. As matters stand approximately only half the urban authorities in the country are availing of that. If Deputy Bruton is very interested in this the first thing he should do would be to go out and find out why the rest of the local authorities are not introducing free school meals a scheme for which is already there and available.

I do not want to condemn the proposal entirely. The one advantage which may emerge out of it is that it is quite possible that, in so far as we are already supplying subsidised milk to schools under the free meals scheme, we will be able to recoup that expenditure from Brussels. That would be a positive advantage to the country and should certainly encourage other local authorities in urban areas who are not availing of this free meals scheme to go ahead and introduce it. As far as we have studied this proposal, at the moment it is not very attractive from our point of view. The situation is on-going, to use a cliché.

We will certainly keep in touch with the situation and if any more attractive proposals emerge from Brussels we will be glad to avail of them. At the moment I am not satisfied that I would be justified in spending £6 million on this sort of scheme. As Deputy Clinton knows better than anybody else, the existing level of consumption of milk in this country is abnormally high. We consume 44 gallons per head per annum as compared with, say, 12 gallons in Germany. We have not much hope of increasing that any more. I do not think there is any demand, in rural areas certainly, for a free milk for schools scheme. There might be a possibility of extending it slightly in the urban areas, but I have never come across any pressure in rural Ireland for a scheme for free milk only. I am satisfied that unless this Brussels proposal is very considerably changed it is not the best thing for us at present and it would not be the best way for us to spend another £6 million if I or the Minister for Education were to be offered that by the Minister for Finance.

The advice that I was getting was that the money we were spending on school meals would be taken into account——

Sorry, Deputy, it is not in order to raise any matter once the debate has finished.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 7th December, 1977.

Barr
Roinn