Vol. 384 No. 4
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has satisfied himself with Ireland's allocation under the EC free food scheme for last year; and if it is his intention to seek an increased allocation this year in light of the evidence available that more than 30 per cent of the population are living below the poverty line.
8.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the total amount of (a) butter and (b) meat supplied to low-income families from EC surplus stocks so far this year; the number of families who have received such assistance; if there are plans for further distribution of foodstuffs this winter; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 8 together.
A total of 100 million ECU (about £80 million) was allocated to the 1988 EC scheme for the supply of food from intervention stocks for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community. Some member states pressed for a distribution of the allocation based on population, but I insisted on a distribution which took account of the relative economic position of member states. The Commission accepted my reasoning and, consequently, despite our having only 1 per cent of the Community's population, Ireland was initially awarded almost 2.5 per cent of the overall allocation, i.e. 2.35 million ECU — about £1.8 million. In addition, I am pleased to announce that I have recently succeeded in obtaining an extra 1.338 million ECU — over £1.0 million — for this year's scheme, as I announced yesterday.
Due to the limited nature of the scheme it was essential that eligibility criteria be drawn up in consultation with the Department of Social Welfare and other interested parties. The Irish scheme, as approved by the Commission, covers:
(1) Homeless persons accommodated in hostels and shelters run by voluntary organisations. These hostels and shelters have been receiving supplies of beef and butter based on their stated needs to the end of December next. Over 55 tonnes of beef and 13 tonnes of butter will have been allocated by the year's end.
(2) Certain social welfare recipients (approximately 50,000) i.e. — recipients of long term unemployment assistance who qualify for the fuel allowance; recipients of long term supplementary welfare allowance; FÁS trainees who qualify for the fuel allowance.
The Society of St. Vincent de Paul have agreed to operate the scheme in so far as the eligible social welfare recipients are concerned. Accordingly, some 460 tonnes of beef will be distributed by the society to these categories. Vouchers, which can be redeemed at the local St. Vincent de Paul depot, will be issued automatically to eligible beneficiaries through the employment exchanges and community welfare officers. Distribution under this scheme will commence in the week beginning Monday, 21 November.
I will, of course, be making continued efforts to ensure that Ireland receives a sizeable allocation under the 1989 scheme. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank once again the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for agreeing to carry out this difficult operation, and also the meat plants for agreeing to process the beef free of charge.
Will the Minister explain how it happens that at a time when the number of families living below the poverty line goes up and up the amount of our allocation under the scheme goes down and down? In 1987 we got in excess of £6 million, while in 1988 we are to get slightly in excess of £2 million. Nobody is effectively arguing the case of the poor in Brussels. I would ask the Minister to recognise that there are large numbers of families for whom the bite of beef they get under this scheme is the only bite of beef they get from one end of the year to the other.
The amount agreed by the Community for allocation this year was 50 per cent lower than allocated last year. I regret that as much as does Deputy Quill. Some countries have had a further reduction.
We have got 66 per cent less.
Our proportionate share of the amount allocated was higher than last year. I insisted as part of my agreement that if some countries who had no enthusiasm for the scheme did not take up their proportionate share we should have priority in the amount being re-distributed. That is why I was able to announce an extra £1 million yesterday.
I hope next year it will be a lot more, but it will have to be a proportion of the overall available in the European Community.
Is the Minister admitting that the case of the poor in general is not being argued when the overall allocation is being decided?
The Deputy is now engaging in repetition.
The Deputy is clearly not looking for information. The implication in her questions that no concern was expressed by this Government is not correct. The European Community's global amount was reduced and the case for the poor in Ireland was so strenuously argued that we got a much higher percentage than previously, together with an extra £1 million only a few weeks ago. If that is not effective arguing I do not know what is. I tried to get 11 other member states to see it as clearly as we do.
The decision has been made in regard to this year's allocation and, regrettable as it is, there is not much point in arguing about it. I wish to ask about the 1989 allocation. In view of the fact that poverty conferences have highlighted the situation here — a poverty conference was held in Brussels at which unfortunately no Irish MEP turned up — will the Minister emphasise to the Commission that every pound of butter and beef taken from them represents a reduction in their expenditure? It is a saving for them and there is a need for it here where well over one million people, many of them children, are living in poverty. Will the Minister begin now arguing for earlier and more frequent allocations in 1989?
I will.
Would the Minister agree that the essence of what he is saying is that the crumbs from the rich man's table in Europe are getting scarcer for the poor? Would he further agree that the system of distributing this charity — and I say that with coldness in my voice — is hit and miss? I am not criticising the St. Vincent de Paul Society, but they are simply not organised to distribute nationally. Would the Minister not agree that the more appropriate authority to distribute any benefits or assistance would be the statutory authorities of the health boards whose officers are fully aware of all the criteria he has mentioned? Would he inform the House if it has been found necessary to give instructions to the poor on how to cook the meat they get because normally they do not need to have this knowledge.
The criteria for distribution was drawn up by the Department of Social Welfare after consultation with the Department of Health and the voluntary agencies. I agree with the Deputy that there is hardly an organisation in this country who deserve as much credit, and certainly warrant less criticism, than the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.
Would the Minister admit that at this moment beef stocks in Europe are at an all-time high?
That is not the case.
I will have to put down another question.
It is certainly not so here.
