Private Members' Business. - Milk Products Scheme: Motion (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (21st Dáil) – Wednesday, 19 Apr 1978

Private Members' Business. - Milk Products Scheme: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Bruton on Tuesday, 18 April 1978:

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.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

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".

—(Minister for Social Welfare.)

Mr. D'Arcy

If implemented this motion would, in addition to fulfilling the primary purpose at which it is aimed, help even in a small way to reduce the milk surplus at home. We hear much these days of the various mountains of agricultural products in the EEC. It should be our aim to help to reduce these mountains.

I should like to deal briefly with the need for the scheme we are advocating. We hear a fair deal from the Minister for Health about the various health problems and we are given some advice on how to deal with those problems. Nobody can deny the enormous benefits this scheme could have for our school-going children. The principal of a large school during the past three months spoke to parents about two major problems confronting our school-going children at the moment. The first one is late viewing of television, which we are not discussing tonight. The second one is the question of children going to school after a very poor breakfast, which we are discussing tonight.

The Minister raised his eyebrows at me last night when I quoted some figures taken from a private survey carried out in a couple of our schools. He may ask me what authority I have to carry out such a private survey. Firstly, I am a parent and, secondly, I am chairman of the vocational committee in Wexford and a member of two boards. I mentioned those facts to Deputy Bruton before he spoke last night because I felt they should be brought up in this debate. This debate, if it does no other good, has demonstrated a problem with our school-going children.

I stated here last night that up to 25 per cent of the children attending our schools go to school after a very poor breakfast and a small percentage go with no breakfast at all. We quantified the number of children who came to school without any breakfast. This was in the region of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. Deputy Bruton gave that figure but he did not tell the House that at least 20 per cent of our children across the country go to school with a very poor breakfast of tea, bread and butter. I am glad to see that the Evening Herald have taken up this story and checked it. I wonder if the Minister has seen it. They have given more figures than we gave last night.

This article says that the House was told last night that every 30 children out of 100 go without breakfast while 40 per cent have only tea, bread, and butter before leaving for school. It says that the problem of hungry children is nationwide. There is a lot of information in this article. The writer has checked the facts with the principals of certain schools. It also gives another figure which seems to me to be rather high. The writer of the article maintains that up to 7 per cent of our children from poor areas have to go hungry to school and stay hungry all day. The Minister should look into some of those facts before the end of this debate.

Those children would benefit greatly from milk. Milk could be regarded as a medicine to hungry children. It has a high nutrient content. I would like to stress that we should help children to acquire a taste for milk at a young age. If they acquire a taste for milk they will continue to drink it thereby benefiting their general health. It is right to describe milk as relatively inexpensive, particularly when we compare the price of it at 8p a pint with the price of minerals at 20p for a small bottle. I believe that parents give their children too much trash for their school lunches. They give them biscuits, chocolates and minerals, which are not healthy foods. They cannot be compared with the benefits children would derive from half a pint of milk a day. People sometimes talk about milk being a complete food. I do not agree with that, but I consider it is a great basic food.

There are a few other products, apart from milk, which can come under this scheme, one of which is yoghurt I understand that while cheese does not qualify a small effort by us would allow it to qualify. Yoghurt is a relatively new milk product in this country and contains a very high percentage of milk and fruit. It is a little expensive but I believe it will qualify under this grant. If it was introduced to our schools it would become very popular and would be very widely used.

The Minister last night spent some time talking about the amount of milk we consume in comparison with other EEC countries, but he did not tell us that we are one of the lowest as far as the consumption of cheese is concerned. Cheese is a very good non-fat food. It would be widely used if a taste were developed for it. I believe that if the Minister introduced this scheme the EEC would have no objection to having cheese come in under it.

Milk is a very perishable commodity. Some people ask why children do not bring it to school in a bottle. Unfortunately, if the temperature is not right the bacteria count in the milk will rise rapidly with the result that it develops a bad taste. We should not encourage children to bring milk to school in bottles.

The EEC aid would also permit us to instal proper equipment in the schools. That is an important point. The Minister expressed the view last night that cold milk was not good for children but it is possible to heat it, to use it to make cocoa or to give children sweetened milk. I understand that there is electricity in all our schools and that coolers, sweeteners and fridges which operate on electricity can be bought under this scheme. If those machines were installed in schools our children could be offered a high standard product and they would then be encouraged to drink the milk.

It should be remembered that in the production and processing of milk a high labour content is involved. It starts in the milking parlour, goes to the creameries and from there is delivered to the schools. There is labour involved at all stages. If this scheme was introduced I have no doubt that we would get a return in that direction. It should also be remembered that farmers have a great interest in such a scheme. I told the Minister last night that his amendment was an attempt to drag a red herring through our motion. That amendment requests the EEC to pay for a scheme that is already provided for and in existence. The Minister is begging for subsidies for that scheme.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Haughey)

What is the motion tabled by the Deputy's colleagues about?

Mr. D'Arcy

We want the scheme put into operation properly. One of the reasons the EEC scheme exists is to use up the surplus milk. We must remember that our farmers are being asked to pay .9p per gallon to subsidise this scheme and they are watching the Government's operation on this issue. We have not heard any Member from the Government side on this issue, and that is unfortunate. The EEC have asked all farmers, whether they are liquid milk producers or commercial milk producers, to pay the levy. On that basis a farmer producing 110 gallons per day is being asked to contribute £1 per day to the scheme. I am aware that the milk producers intend pressing the Government to introduce this scheme.

In the Dublin sales area, which has a consumption rate of approximately 110,000 gallons per day, in 1977 there were 116 million gallons of surplus milk. That milk was not just surplus in the months of June, July and August; it was surplus all the year round. The milk is of a very high quality and is subjected to stringent tests twice weekly. It is available for this scheme. Therefore, the Minister cannot make a case that the milk is not available or that the milk available is not of high enough quality. Farmers have already contributed, between 16 September 1977 and 31 January 1978, £1,473,000 in levies and it is estimated that they will contribute approximately £7 million to this fund. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government will be asked to try to reduce this milk surplus. There is a subsidy available to the Government to reduce that surplus but they are not availing of it. They are failing in their duty to the farming community and to our school-going children.

It is ridiculous for the Government to be begging for subsidies to support the existing scheme. The Minister has already told us that the existing scheme is only being used by 27 local authorities out of a possible 49. He also told us that it would be difficult to implement such a scheme but he should remember that he can avail of the management boards of all schools. There should not be any problem about the administration of the scheme. There may be a certain amount of waste but in a scheme such as this it is difficult to avoid having waste. There is a demand from all schools for a better deal for the school children, many of whom must leave home as early as 7 a.m. and do not return home until 5 p.m. The introduction of the scheme suggested in this motion would be a stepping stone to better things in all our schools.

Mr. Bermingham

I support the motion. The EEC have decided to make available some of the money collected by way of levy towards the cost of providing milk for school children. The levy was originally collected to try to increase the sale of milk and milk products. When it was introduced many Members asked that the money collected here be spent here and we are now being given an opportunity to spend some of that money in a practical way by giving milk to our school children. We would be making our children accustomed to milk, something which would be of great benefit in the long term to our milk producers.

It is our duty as a milk-producing nation to ensure that every effort is made to use this money for the purpose for which it was allocated. It is our duty to do everything in our power to promote the sale of milk and milk products throughout Europe and to co-operate in any scheme that has that object in view. There is no better way to promote a long-standing demand for milk products than to start with the children. As far as I understand it, the amendment proposes that this money be devoted to the free school meals scheme already in existence in some areas. Most of the areas which will benefit from that suggestion are the larger towns and city areas. We have a duty to cherish all of our children equally and to ensure that every child in even the smallest schools benefits from the money which has become available. This money has been collected, by and large, from people in the rural areas. There is a great need for school meals, especially in rural areas and milk is an ideal form of school meal. As has been mentioned by the previous speaker, many children in rural areas leave their homes at about 8 o'clock in the morning to go long journeys to school with as little as a cup of tea and a slice of bread inside them and they are out until 5 o'clock in the evening. If money is specifically laid aside to provide milk in these schools, it is our duty to provide it.

It is unreasonable and unjust to allow this benefit to a percentage of our children only. All our children are entitled to this benefit. To suggest that it is an impossible scheme to carry out is wrong. Nowadays milk is delivered in even the most remote rural areas. I live in a rural area with a small school and I know that milk lorries deliver milk from house to house and that the dairies would be willing to deliver milk to the school. Nowadays milk is available in packets so that bottles would not have to be collected.

It has been suggested that it would cost money to have milk delivered to the national schools in all areas. I know there would be some cost, but in my area there are two firms that would be delighted to deliver milk to the local school. It is evading the issue to say that the scheme would be impossible to administer. No practical person and no principal in any school would accept that it is impossible to administer. The milk is available in these areas. There may be one area in a thousand where milk is not delivered. There is not a lot of cost attached to delivering milk and this would be a method of using money that was allotted for this purpose. I know there is probably a greater need in built-up areas for a better school meals scheme and that this depends entirely on the amount of money available. But the people who live in rural areas are entitled to their share of the available money, and I will not accept for one minute that people in large built-up areas where these schemes are available are the only people who should benefit from the money provided.

It is necessary for us to ensure that there is an increase in the sale of milk and milk products. The Minister said yesterday that we have the highest milk consumption per head of the population of any country in Europe. I accept that, and I am glad to hear it. The Minister also suggested that it was not possible to increase the consumption of milk by any appreciable amount. I do not accept that. Many of our children attending national schools could do with milk. It would be a great part of their diet, and it would undoubtedly help to increase the sale of milk and milk products in the future. Our consumption of milk may be the highest in Europe but many children have not much consumption of milk or anything else. They go long journeys to school on buses. They go out for many hours with very little food of any kind. We have a duty to these people. Poverty is as well known in rural areas as in urban areas. I have known children from very poor families who go to school and are out for seven or eight hours with very little food. When money of this kind is made available it should be used in every school. I accept there might be a little cost in some cases. I have business connections with people doing milk rounds and I know that they would be prepared to drop off milk to schools even if they had to go a little out of their way to do it. I do not think there is any problem about the cost of delivery, of collection of empties or anything like that. I do not believe there is a principal teacher in any school who would not lift the telephone and order that milk for that school. I do not believe there is one member of a school's committee who would not lift the telephone and order that milk for that school. I find it very difficult to believe that the scheme I am suggesting is unworkable. I do not accept it. I do not know what is the real intention, whether it is to use it as a partial saving on the present scheme or to add it to areas where the benefit is at present being felt.

I have made my views quite clear, but I say quite definitely there is a need for this kind of service in all areas. I know it will be said to me that local authorities can take this up if they so wish. We should encourage all local authorities to give this kind of service in every school in the country. I am not saying that every pupil attending those schools is the type of person who would need the kind of service about which I speak. In all of the rural schools with which I am familiar and I know many of them—there are some pupils whose parents are unable properly to prepare them for a long day at school.

The Minister should take another look at this scheme. I know he is a practical man. I do not believe that the implementation of this scheme is impossible. I cannot accept that, because it is the simplest thing in the world in most rural areas to have the required number of bottles of milk delivered at the door any morning of the week. We have a duty to do this. Our milk producers are being asked on this occasion to provide the money for doing whatever can be done by way of advertising in the promotion of milk as a staple food. It has been said that we cannot put it any further than the present consumption. If that be the case then the campaign being carried on by An Bord Bainne and others must be utter nonsense because I see advertisements regularly coming on the screen saying: "A pint a day"; "Drink more milk" and so on. The advertising agencies who arrange such publicity are not fools. It must be possible to increase sales within our own areas. An Bord Bainne have done a wonderful job of selling most of our milk and milk products, a very small proportion of which go into intervention because we have, in them, an organisation, that has sold our products in no uncertain fashion throughout Europe and indeed the world at large. But, if we are to get the kind of support from Europe that our dairy farmers and industry need to increase production—which must be done if we are to survive as a milk-producing country—we must co-operate in the schemes being promoted by Europe in order to increase milk sales in this area.

I appeal to the Minister to do now what we ask, and make this milk available to all our children equally.

Mr. Boland

If ever the Minister for Social Welfare knew he was wrong about anything he knows he is wrong in his attitude to this scheme. The proof of his incorrect approach is the emptiness of the benches behind him and the fact that for the first time in weeks of private Members' Business, no speaker from that side of the House other than the Minister was prepared to come in to defend the Government's amendment. I do not blame them for refusing to come in to defend the indefensible. The simple fact of the matter is that the Minister for Social Welfare never wanted to introduce this scheme in the first place and, until Deputy Bruton flushed him out, never realised that this scheme was available or that he was responsible for it.

The Chair may recall that on the first attempt made by Deputy Bruton to raise this matter in the House the Minister abdicated all responsibility and claimed that a multiplicity of his colleagues might be involved but that his interest was secondary only. I would remind the House of the debate on the Supplementary Estimate for Social Welfare on 1 December last when I suggested in the House that the present school meals scheme was unsatisfactory, was not working as extensively as it should and needed to be expanded. The Minister, in his reply to the debate, at column 651, Volume 302, of the Official Report said:

As Deputies know, my Department only come into this at second hand.

Deputies did not know that and it was the first that Deputies were told about it. Later on the same day—Deputy Bruton having unsuccessfully sought to get the Government to answer this and eventually going directly to the Taoiseach's office to ask that some Minister with responsibility for the introduction of this scheme should take it up—the matter was arranged for the adjournment debate of that evening. The Minister now sitting here, apparently then reluctantly being forced into accepting the fact that he had responsibility for the non-implementation and non-administration of this scheme, said, at column 657 of the Official Report when you, Sir, said that this matter was to be raised:

I understand that my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, is the Minister involved in this. To whom has the question been allowed?

I went on to remind the Minister that he had mentioned earlier in the day that this debate was coming up on the adjournment and that now he would have an opportunity of dealing with it. He—I almost said—gracefully declined.

At column 659 of the same debate the Minister, having been flushed out by Deputy Bruton, at that time said:

... I make a submission that it is clear that the European Community are involved in this and that is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

—that was a second colleague on whom he tried to pin the blame. The Minister then went on to say:

Milk is involved in this and that is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture.

He had tried to pass it on to him earlier. Then the Minister went on to say:

Schools are involved and that is a matter for the Minister for Education,

and eventually admitted reluctantly:

and in a very remote way the Minister for Social Welfare may or may not be involved.

"May or may not be involved"—he is not involved now because he has refused so far to introduce the scheme. Of course he was the Minister responsible, the Minister who had done nothing about it. Then, when Deputy Bruton asked him:

What are the Government for?

at column 660, the Minister replied:

. . . As the local authorities are involved this is a matter for the Minister for the Environment.

The Minister was running out of colleagues rather fast at that stage. Eventually the House agreed to allow the matter be deferred for a week to allow the Government to decide whether the Minister for Social Welfare should or should not be responsible for the scheme initially being handled by his Department. The present scheme traditionally has been handled by his Department. Deputy Bruton asked on that day, quite clearly, whether the Government had any form of collective responsibility or could decide, if this Minister was not prepared to accept responsibility, whether any other man would take it on. Of course none of the rest of them did because they knew and knew quite rightly, that this is the Minister responsible.

Here now we see the Minister's real attitude to social welfare and trying to help young children. Here we have the traditional approach of his party to social welfare. The Minister declines to introduce the scheme proposed by Deputy Bruton, and his amendment to the motion must be quite the worst amendment tabled by this Government since coming into office. Deputy Bruton's amendment suggests that the EEC subsidy for milk and milk products should be introduced on a nationwide basis. The Government amendment is that the House should welcome the fact that this Minister for Social Welfare is asking the EEC to make the subsidy available to the existing school meals scheme.

We all accept that the existing scheme is unsatisfactory. It is not working as extensively as it should. We all know very well that milk forms part of the existing school meals scheme. The Minister suggests in his amendment that the House approve the Government decision to seek to have the EEC subsidy for the supply of milk and milk products made available for the existing school meals schemes. The Minister's amendment asks the House to approve of that decision. On 1 December last at column 651 of Volume 302 of the Official Report the Minister said:

My information is that the scheme is not very satisfactory. It is very limited and it is not a very high quality scheme.

This is the scheme he is now asking the House to approve by asking the EEC to subsidise it. We all agree that the present scheme is unsatisfactory. It is limited to urban and Gaeltacht areas. It needs to be revised. It is a direct insult to the intelligence of this House for the Minister to state categorically last December that the present scheme is unsatisfactory and today ask the House to vote for his amendment seeking approval of his decision to ask the EEC to subsidise—to use his own words—that unsatisfactory scheme.

We all know it is wrong that rural areas are debarred from introducing the present school meals scheme. That prohibition is long standing. It is patently absurd. I am a member of a local authority, the county council of County Dublin. Under the Minister's definition that is a rural area. What does that mean? It means that the present unsatisfactory—I use the Minister's own words—school meals scheme cannot be provided for children in such populous areas as Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, Lucan, Dundrum, Swords, Santry, in an area with which the Minister may be familiar, Darndale, because he passes it on his way home. It is a large corporation estate built in the county, as is the area just before it. The local authority statutorily charged with administering those areas are debarred by law from introducing even the present limited school meals scheme for the children in those areas. No one, not even the Minister, would have the temerity to stand up here and say that there are literally thousands of children who attend schools in those areas who would not benefit from the introduction of a school meals scheme. But we cannot do it. In Cork the local authority is debarred by law from introducing a school meals scheme for the overspill from Cork city. The same situation obtains in Limerick, Clare and Galway. The Minister proposes to do nothing about this and he asks the House to approve of his doing nothing about it.

If we compare the time children today are away from home attending school with the time their parents were away from home attending school we find that children today are away from their homes for a far longer period than either their parents or even the children of a decade ago. There are reasons for this, the main reason being the ruthless phasing out of rural schools. Children now have to travel longer distances to school. More children are attending post-primary schools—this is a welcome development—and in some cases, with the help of free transport, they travel 30 or 40 miles to school. They have to leave home before eight o'clock in the morning and they do not return home until six o'clock in the evening. Would these not benefit by the introduction of a scheme to provide them during the day with milk and milk products? Is the Minister suggesting that these children, away from home for the bulk of their waking hours, would not benefit from such a scheme as that suggested by Deputy Bruton and others? In effect, the Minister is saying in his amendment that they would not benefit.

There has been a change in the social structure in recent years. Necessity has led to the working wife, the wife who goes out to work when her husband goes out to work at eight o'clock and does not return home until six o'clock in the evening. Perhaps the Minister agrees with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, about these wives. She is faced with the burden of trying to provide a dinner or some substitute meal for her children in the evening. Would her children not benefit by the introduction of the proposed scheme? The children are there. The Minister may not be aware of them, but they are there.

There are 800,000 children at school at first or second level education. The present limited scheme applies only to urban areas and only to children in primary education. There is no scheme of any kind for children in second level education. We have been encouraging parents to allow their children to attend post-primary education. We have been encouraging them to give their children all the post-primary education they can because of present unemployment problems. We know there are children of parents with low incomes attending post-primary education, children who in former days would not have done so.

I know from my four years as a member of County Dublin Vocational Committee—two of those years were spent as Chairman—how many of these children go home hungry from school in the evening. I know how many arrive at school hungry in the morning. But my committee in County Dublin are debarred by law from providing any sort of school meal., subsidised or otherwise, for these children. We visited different centres in England to examine the schemes operated by the educational authorities there. We were unanimous—I include members who belong to the Minister's party in that unanimity—that the introduction of at least a snack lunch would be of great benefit to the children from homes in the lower income categories. They have no money to buy food. The children of the better off sections have money, money they do not always spend on food, money they may spend, to the Minister's disapproval, on cigarettes or other things. They can arrive home hungry. Would they not benefit from the introduction of a scheme such as that proposed by Deputy Bruton and others? Would they not benefit from milk and milk products, especially yoghurt, which was mentioned by Deputy Treacy, and which could be provided so easily?

If the Minister will extend this scheme to County Dublin I guarantee my local authority will implement it at primary, post-primary and vocational level. Deputy D'Arcy referred to The Evening Herald and in the article in this evening's Herald there is quoted a comment attributed to Dublin city's chief school attendance officer, Mr. Brian Doolin. Mr. Doolin maintains that up to about 7 per cent of children from poor areas have to go hungry to school. Last night when Deputy Bruton suggested that the figure might be 4 per cent the Minister suggested that 4 per cent was a rather high estimate.

Mr. Haughey

I did not say anything about the adequacy of Deputy Bruton's figures.

Mr. Boland

Mr. Doolin went on to say: "But no meals are provided for children attending post-primary schools. One vocational school headmaster recently carried out a head count and found 22 pupils had had nothing to eat that day." I am prepared to accept that information because it corresponds with my experience as a former chairman of the vocational committee in the county.

The Minister also suggested that the introduction of a scheme to allow for milk or milk products in Ireland would be largely irrelevant because of the fact that we were already the highest consumers of milk in the EEC. I do not see the validity of that argument except that it seems to indicate that the Irish like milk better than their European counterparts. If they do and if it were offered to their children, is it not likely that their children would also be inclined to drink that milk if they got it at school at midday? I would also have thought that the introduction of the scheme in a country with as high a producing capability of dairy products as this would have been an encouragement to other EEC countries to do likewise and to increase the annual consumption per head in those countries. That would have had a spinoff for Irish farmers, but the Minister is not too worried about them now.

I would have thought that the introduction of a scheme to allow milk and milk products for children, even in the existing areas where there are food schemes at present, would help to eliminate the problem of malnutrition which does exist in a certain small section of our population. I would have thought that the elimination of malnutrition and the provision of a food as beneficial as milk would have been directly interesting to the Minister for Health if the Minister for Social Welfare was not interested. In this case the Minister for Health also happens to be the Minister for Social Welfare. He decided initially that he was not responsible for this scheme. Now he cannot go back on that. Now he cannot wear his cap as Minister for Health and say that he wants to encourage his colleague the Minister for Social Welfare to introduce this scheme, as he is one and the same person.

In the same article to which I referred, Mr. Doolin said:

Their parents just cannot afford to buy food as they struggle to pay heating costs.

He went on to criticise, and I believe rightly:

I have seen tiny tots shivering with the cold while trying to sip ice-cold milk in the middle of winter. In one school the teachers tried to warm the milk a little by putting the bottles against the radiators. The whole thing is barbarous.

Of course it is. There is nothing to stop the introduction of this scheme and the extensive supply of milk and milk products to schools, and for that milk to be heated and provided for the children in a variety of drinks such as cocoa, drinking chocolate, coffee and so on, all the different drinks which adults often have as snacks during the day and which keep them going if they are unable to have a proper lunch. We all know that these drinks would have to be beneficial for young children, especially for the young children referred to by Mr. Doolin, the children of deprived parents who have not the money for their lunches.

The scheme could be introduced in this city, which is commented on in tonight's Herald, and in every other city and village in Ireland if there was a political will on the part of the Minister and his party to do it. What is wrong is that there is not that will. The Minister is depriving 800,000 children of the benefits of a scheme that could be introduced. He is, in a spin-off way, as Deputy D'Arcy said, depriving the Irish farmers of the benefits which would come to them through their children and their neighbours' children being helped from their contribution. So far they have paid £1.5 million into the EEC levy. Deputy D'Arcy estimates that it will amount to £7 million in a full year. That money is recoverable and could be put to great social benefit by introducing this scheme. Unfortunately, the Minister has not the political will to do that. Instead he belatedly introduced an amendment to suggest that we should use this EEC money, to which Deputy Bruton drew his attention in the first place, merely to subsidise the acknowledged unsatisfactory scheme which is at present in operation. In defence of his inactivity in this area he announced —in this regard the present Minister must hold the record—that yet another working party has been set up to examine this matter. I quote the Official Report of last night's debate:

I hear different reports about the existing scheme, whether it is satisfactory or not satisfactory. 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.

There must be more groups, working parties and consultative bodies in the Department of Social Welfare than there are problems, and we all know the number of problems there are in those two Departments. If this Minister has been busy in one thing it has been in the setting up of groups to examine something, which neatly kicks it for touch. A long time ago I suggested to the Taoiseach that the Irish rugby team could do with a good touch kicker. There are a number of qualified people sitting on the Ministerial benches, and the Minister is ahead of everybody else in that regard because he has kicked for touch every suggestion that has been put to him, every constructive idea and everything with an element of controversy attaching to it.

As a justification for his refusal to extend this scheme into rural areas the Minister gave the excuse that only 49 of the 89 local authorities that are entitled to implement the admittedly unsatisfactory scheme do so at present. The Minister was being unfair to those listening to him who do not understand the financial structure of local authorities and how they operate. We all know that there are about 90 urban authorities and, of course, the Gaeltacht authorities that are entitled to operate the scheme. Not many others know that many of those authorities are town commissioners and urban councils bereft of finance and unable to spend money on anything. The majority of urban councils and town commissioners would find that if they wanted to introduce a scheme to buy a new street cleansing vehicle for their town it might put up the rates by something like £5 in the £.

The urban authorities do not operate this scheme. They never operated it because they never had the money to operate it. The urban authorities in all the major centres operated it. They complained about it. They asked to have it improved, but it has not been improved. The major rural authorities have consistently asked for the power and the legislative right to implement this scheme, and it has been consistently refused to them, and refused to them again by this Minister. It is quite unfair for a Minister to suggest——

Mr. Haughey

They never asked me.

Mr. Boland

——that urban authorities are not implementing this scheme because they do not feel like it. The only urban authorities who did not introduce it were tiny authorities like town commissioners who had not got the money to introduce it. When this scheme was first announced in the EEC document, the right to operate a scheme like this was given to a national authority, in this case the Minister for Social Welfare in Ireland, although he did not believe that in December.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is making many misstatements which are unworthy of him.

Mr. Boland

The right was also given to either a regional or a local authority to introduce this scheme. Our local authorities could get 50 per cent of the cost of operating this scheme from the EEC if they were to introduce it. If the Minister is unable or unwilling to introduce it at national level, the local authorities still cannot operate it because they have no legislative power to do so. If the Minister is unable or unwilling to introduce it at national level, he should at least see that the local authorities are given the option to apply to the EEC to introduce it on a local basis if they so desire.

The Minister also suggested in his contribution yesterday evening that the introduction of this scheme would mean the children who benefit by it would be obliged to pay part of the cost of the milk or milk products. I do not accept that.

The Deputy is clocking up one misstatement per minute.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Clinton is on record in this House in the course of an earlier discussion on this matter when the Minister was present——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is clocking up a minute or two more than he is entitled to.

Mr. Bruton

It is very difficult for me to reply to this debate because there have been no contributions, with the exception of the Minister's contribution, from the party with a very substantial majority of the seats in this House. It seems to me to be indicative of that party's concern in matters of this sort that the Minister did not think it fit to seek support from any colleague of his for the stand he is taking in this matter. Although this debate has gone on for two days, no Fianna Fáil speaker, apart from the Minister, has seen fit to defend the Minister's stance on this matter.

It is clear that Fianna Fáil do not believe the Minister is adopting the right position on this issue. They know the Minister is backing a loser in this case and they do not want to back a loser. They want to leave him in the lurch to defend an indefensible position which he has been forced to adopt by the Government, whether with his will or against his will I do not know. He has been left to defend it alone. His own Party have shown no willingness to put in a speaker to defend the position he is adopting in this debate, a fair contrast with other debates in this House when they have been falling over themselves to get in, and insisting that there should be two Fianna Fáil speakers for any Fine Gael speaker in any debate, so that they would have equality of hearing with the total Opposition. They insisted on that when the new Dáil was elected.

Now in a debate on an important matter affecting children, many of whom, as has been demonstrated without any serious contradiction from any quarter—up to 10 per cent perhaps in the case of some schools; an average of between 2 and 4 per cent across the country—are going to school without any breakfast, without any nourishment when a scheme is proposed with the aid of the EEC, with 50 per cent of the cost paid by the EEC, to provide nourishment for the poorest of the poor, children who are not being properly fed by their families, there are no Fianna Fáil speakers to defend the position adopted by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare.

I am left in the position of having to reply to one speaker only. I am not replying to a debate. I am replying to one speaker who spoke on the matter only because he had to and who has responsibility for this matter because he was forced into having responsibility for it as a result of a succession of Parliamentary questions and adjournment debates. He is the Member of this House to whom I must reply in this debate. He made a few points. They deserve to be dealt with.

First he pointed to high existing consumption of milk and implied that there was no room for increased consumption of milk, that this scheme would not bring about increased consumption of milk. Quite clearly it would. There are many children, as has been demonstrated already and accepted by him, who do not get any milk at all for their breakfast. Those children would certainly consume extra milk per day if this scheme were made available. There are many other children who cannot afford to buy some of these milk products, yoghurts for instance. If this scheme was available to them, they would consume more milk or milk products than they are consuming at present. As the result of the introduction of this scheme there would definitely be a net increase in the total amount of milk and milk products consumed. Nobody has seriously suggested otherwise.

This has been claimed not only by me but by the interests who are concerned with the promotion of milk consumption, the milk bottlers and the milk distributors. They have stated clearly that they believe that if this scheme were introduced it would involve a considerable increase in the consumption of milk. That disposes of the Minister's first argument that, because there is already a high level of milk consumption over all, over the whole community, a special scheme for making available free or subsidised milk in the schools would not lead to an increase in milk consumption. Clearly it would, and the Minister is wrong on that point.

In passing he referred to the problem as to whether teachers would administer the scheme. I do not think there is any doubt that teachers would if they were approached in the right manner and if the Government were serious about introducing the scheme. Teachers would co-operate fully because nobody realises more than teachers the extent to which under-nourishment and inadequate nourishment can diminish a child's ability to concentrate on his or her lessons.

I checked this matter with a number of teachers before this debate, and they pointed out to me that there are a number of children in their schools and, indeed, in every school who cannot concentrate on their lessons because they have inadequate nourishment before they go to school in the morning. They have no breakfast, or a breakfast which was unbalanced or inadequate. Those teachers realise that this is the case and they realise that they cannot carry out their work to its fullest extent, and in the most effective manner possible, because a significant minority of children are insufficiently nourished.

It would mean a lot to those children and to others, too, who might be in need of nourishment to be able to avail of hot milk for their 11 o'clock break. We all need our midmorning break. Every business executive expects his secretary to bring him a cup of tea or coffee during the morning. Anybody doing a hard day's work deserves that break, and nobody works harder than children who have to rise at 7.30. They have to work a great deal harder in the morning than, say, many Members of this House. Why, then, should the children not be given some sustenance at that time?

Mr. Haughey

Was that not the situation when the Deputy was Parliamentary Secretary in the Department of Education?

Mr. D'Arcy

There was no scheme then.

Mr. Killilea

There was no education either.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy was there for four years.

Mr. Bruton

This scheme was introduced in May 1977. I left office within six weeks of that time. The Minister's party were in office for 16 years before the Coalition so he need not be coy about the matter. His record of service in Government is a lot longer than mine if we want to talk about who had the better opportunity for doing something about this problem.

Mr. Haughey

It is the Deputy's heart that is bleeding now.

Mr. Bruton

The Minister raised the issue of collecting money if there were to be a charge to the children and he foresaw some difficulty in this regard. He sought to imply that we were advocating a charge for milk for the children. That is not so. We would much prefer that a free scheme be introduced. Although the scheme would be financed by the EEC to the extent of 50 per cent the Minister seemed to think that there would be difficulty for him in raising his share of the cost. It was only in that context —that the Minister found himself short of money—that I was suggesting one possible way, albeit not the most desirable, of making up the amount the Minister would subscribe from apparently his very limited coffers for social welfare. I suggested that it might be possible to charge some of the children, but I am not arguing that that is the only way in which the overall cost of the scheme to the Exchequer could be met.

Perhaps so. If the Minister were to provide this scheme he would have to spend £6 million to provide the service in national and post-primary schools but he would be getting an additional £6 million from outside. That would represent a net gain in our balance of payments. Unlike many aspects of Government expenditure, for instance, the generalised inflation of the economy by the removal of car tax or the encouraging of people to purchase imports, the money would be spent on Irish children for the purpose of supplying them with Irish products.

The Minister suggested that there might be involved administrative and other costs in the disposing of the milk to the children. Let me repeat again that under the EEC scheme money can be made available for the provision of equipment for this purpose. There can be provided means for storing milk, for heating milk and so on, so that there would be no significant cost involved. The scheme could be self-operating if the necessary equipment were installed.

We could expect, too, that the milk distributors would be prepared to go a considerable way towards meeting the administrative costs of the scheme. It would have a considerable attraction for them because they would have guaranteed consumption compared with the situation in shops when they may have to take back quite an amount of the milk they deliver any day because of it not being sold. Therefore they could be expected to be generous in relation to their contribution to the scheme.

Perhaps the most disquieting aspect of this debate has been the Minister's admission that four children out of 100 are in need of special milk. He was referring to what I said regarding two or four children out of every 100 going to school without breakfast. In relation to my proposal the Minister said that there must be a better way of looking after those children. I asked the Minister "had he found that way". He answered: "I admit I have not and I admit that there are statistics which are disconcerting in this area." The Minister admitted that there was a problem of under-nourishment in our schools, that he did not know the answer and that even though the EEC were prepared to provide an answer and were prepared to pay half the cost of that answer he was not prepared to accept it.

The Minister tried to portray in the House that there were needs in the social welfare area more urgent than the needs of children going to school without adequate nutrition. He said that if he had money he would spend it on something else and would not spend it on school milk, on providing adequate nourishment for children who need it, those who have not had any breakfast before they go to school or who have had a grossly inadequate breakfast. If the Minister does not believe that that is a high priority in social welfare I question his priorities and his right to hold the office he has. If he does not believe that a serious problem of that nature exists and if he is prepared to reject an offer from the EEC towards the only solution—he admits he has not got any other solution—which has yet been proposed to meet that problem I do not believe that he has a very active social conscience in this field.

How will the Minister use the money? He will use it in what I can only describe—I have no wish to be uncharitable—as a mean minded way. He will use the money made available by the EEC presumably to reduce the cost to the Exchequer of existing schemes, instead of providing milk for school children. He will not provide a single extra pint of milk under the amendment which he has proposed. He will substitute EEC money where the Irish taxpayers money is already being used. If that is not a mean minded way of using this scheme to deal with what we all agree, including the Minister, is a genuine social problem of under nourishment among the minority of children in our schools I do not know what it is.

When I spoke on this debate last night I asked the Minister what has happened to his application for aid from the EEC under this scheme. He said that the Government's decision to use the EEC money on a scheme which has been provided already and as a result of which no extra milk will be provided, was approved. He did not tell me what had happened to the application. I asked him when it was submitted but he did not answer that. I asked him when a decision will be taken but he did not answer that either. I do not believe he is serious about getting money for the Irish taxpayers, because he was not prepared to answer the questions I asked him.

There are agricultural arguments in favour of introducing this scheme in addition to the social arguments I have already given. As an agricultural country we have an interest in supporting any measures which include the consumption of milk. We have a duty to set an example to other countries in the EEC, which are not as agricultural as we are, on ways in which milk can be used. We want other countries to spend money to encourage the consumption of our milk products in their markets, but the Government are not prepared to take this relatively small step to increase consumption when they can do it with aid from the EEC. How can we tell the Germans that they should reintroduce a daily door to door milk delivery so that the consumption of Irish milk products can be indirectly encouraged throughout the Community when they know that the EEC offered us £ for £ to provide milk in our schools and we refused to do it? I do not believe we will be taken very seriously in the councils of the EEC when we talk about our anxiety to deal with a problem of agricultural surpluses and the need for incentives for production and more consumption of Irish agricultural products.

We will not be taken very seriously when it is made known that the EEC offered us this money and we refused it. We are saying to the EEC: "You can keep your money. Admittedly our farmers are paying £4 million, £5 million or £7 million towards this fund but even so we do not want any money out of it for school milk." The attitude seems to be that the EEC can keep their money, that we do not want it. That seems to be the attitude of the Government and the Minister for Social Welfare in regard to this matter.

Mr. Haughey

That is wrong. Will the Deputy read the amendment?

Mr. Bruton

I read the amendment carefully. I asked the Minister specific questions about the amendment and about what would happen with regard to the procedures involved in it but he did not answer me. I do not believe that the Minister takes the amendment very seriously. A survey prepared for the bishops on the meaning of poverty showed that 2.9 per cent of the families surveyed had no breakfast and that 40 per cent of the families surveyed had a breakfast which was considered inadequate, consisting of bread, butter and tea. Those children had nothing else before going to school and probably did not get anything at all until the evening when they came home to dinner. Although those figures are available the Minister refuses to avail of EEC money to provide milk for those pupils this survey has shown to be inadequately nourished. The cumulative figure contained in the bishops' statement indicates that 43 per cent of our children either have no nourishment before they go to school or are inadequately nourished, but the Minister refuses to avail of the £ for £ scheme from the EEC to provide milk for those children.

The last point I want to make is a general one which I put to the Minister in a non-partisan manner and I hope he will accept it in that light. One of the facts which came home very forcibly to me in doing my research for this debate is the inadequacy of the figures in relation to nutrition in the country. Various figures have been quoted. I have quoted the best figures available to me, which the Minister has not denied, but there seems to be no authoritative figure produced by his Department for the level of nutrition of school children or of anybody else in the country. I ask the Ministers to at least consider commissioning a survey on nutrition in our schools to see exactly the full extent of the problem so that we will not have to rely on estimates from one source or another but that we will have official information. When the Minister has done that I believe that we will find we are right in advocating a school milk scheme.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 49.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Kit.
Allen, Lorcan.
Andrews, Niall.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Sylvester.
Brady, Gerard.
Cowen, Bernard.
Crinion, Brendan.
Daly, Brendan.
Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.
de Valera, Vivion.
Doherty, Seán.
Fahey, Jackie.
Farrell, Joe.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Filgate, Eddie.
Fitzgerald, Gene.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
Fitzsimons, James N.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Fox, Christopher J.
Gallagher, Dennis.
Haughey, Charles J.
Hussey, Thomas.
Keegan, Seán.
Killeen, Tim.
Killilea, Mark.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lawlor, Liam.
Brady, Vincent.
Browne, Seán.
Callanan, John.
Cogan, Barry.
Collins, Gerard.
Conaghan, Hugh.
Connolly, Gerard.
Lemass, Eileen.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Leonard, Tom.
Leyden, Terry.
Loughnane, William.
Lynch, Jack.
McCreevy, Charlie.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Molloy, Robert.
Moore, Seán.
Morley, P.J.
Murphy, Ciarán P.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Connor, Timothy C.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Desmond.
Reynolds, Albert.
Smith, Michael.
Tunney, Jim.
Walsh, Joe.
Woods, Michael J.
Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

Barry, Peter.
Barry, Richard.
Begley, Michael.
Belton, Luke.
Boland, John.
Bruton, John.
Burke, Joan.
Clinton, Mark.
Cluskey, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlan, John F.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Cosgrave, Michael J.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Kieran.
D'Arcy, Michael J.
Deasy, Martin A.
Desmond, Barry.
Enright, Thomas W.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Gilhawley, Eugene.
Griffin, Brendan.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hegarty, Paddy.
Horgan, John.
Keating, Michael.
Kelly, John.
Kenny, Enda.
Kerrigan, Pat.
L'Estrange, Gerry.
Lipper, Mick.
McMohan, Larry.
Mannion, John M.
Mitchell, Jim.
O'Brien, Fergus.
O'Brien, William.
O'Connell, John.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Toole, Paddy.
Pattison, Sáamus.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Ryan, John J.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.
White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies P. Lalor and C. Murphy; Níl, Deputies Creed and B. Desmond.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 19 Apr 1978

Private Members' Business. - Milk Products Scheme: Motion (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 1978