|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Céadaoin, 21 Márta, 1956.Wednesday, 21st March, 1956.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Miss M. A. Keily (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 62—SOCIAL ASSISTANCE.SUBHEAD E—GRANTS UNDER THE EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) ACTS, 1914 TO 1930.Mr. P. J. Keady called and examined.1179. Chairman.—It was considered necessary to call this meeting in view of the confused position disclosed in the Minute of the Minister for Finance on Report dated 30th March, 1955, of the Committee of Public Accounts in regard to the Schools Meals Scheme and, in order to clarify the matter, further information has to be sought by the Committee. It was thought better in the circumstances to call the Accounting Officer of the Department dealing with social assistance to give additional evidence. The appropriate paragraph in the Minute of the Minister for Finance on the previous Report of the Committee was as follows:— “The Committee suggest as an alternative that the Regulations should be suitably amended. An amendment also of the relevant Acts would be required and this would widen the scope of the service unnecessarily and greatly increase its cost.” What amendment of the Act of 1914 was then considered necessary? Mr. Keady.—Perhaps, before I answer that, I could make a general statement on the whole problem, if that is agreeable. This scheme has been operated now for over 40 years and it was being operated for over 30 years when we took it over in 1947. I could find no trace of any question being raised on this point down through all that period. That is the first thing that struck me about this problem: that it had gone on for 30 or 40 years and that no question had been raised. I turned up the circulars issued by the Department of Local Government and Public Health all down through the years—they issued a circular practically every year—and I found they were all worded with reference to Section 3 of the 1914 Act. In fact, they put the resolution in the form of the actual wording of Section 3 and made no reference at all to Sections 1 or 2. Then I looked at the regulations made under the 1917 Act, which amend Section 3 of the 1914 Act, and it immediately struck me that Article 8 had no legal basis, that there was no power in the Act to prescribe any means test or any contribution because the Regulations could only be made for the purpose of the adequacy of the scheme, for the purpose of securing that the arrangements for the provision of food are adequate and are carried out efficiently. I put that matter, along with some others, to the Legal Adviser and he confirmed that, in fact, Article 8 should never have been in the Regulations, and that, in fact, it was to all intents and purposes dead. It was as if it had never been put in and it could be taken out if necessary. Our Legal Adviser is also adviser to the Departments of Health and Local Government and has been familiar with this problem for a number of years past. The advice which I got from him I have already communicated to the Committee.* He makes two points: one that Article 8 is ultra vires the Act; and, two. that the local authorities are empowered to make a scheme under Section 3 which is not contributory, despite the provisions of Section 2. I think the Committee finds it difficult to understand why this provision of Section 2 does not apply under Section 3. I must say straight away that the matter is not free from difficulty at all, and the conclusion I have come to is that the advice is based on knowledge of the fact that the section is, in fact, unworkable. For instance, it places no direct liability on the parent to contribute. It merely says that the local authority shall charge the parent and, if he does not pay and it is not due to necessitous circumstances, that the matter shall be pursued in the courts. I am told, and it seems obvious, that they could not possibly succeed in court, unless there is a contract between the parent and the local authority. There is no such contract, and they could not have a contract with the child. No matter what they proved in court, they could not recover any sum at all from a defaulting parent. That is one legal difficulty in the Act itself—the unworkability of it. 1180. Would you think it necessary to put in that advice as evidence?—Yes; I am putting it in evidence because I asked him to clarify that point for me. That was the suggestion he made. It is unworkable legally and it is unworkable administratively. When you contemplate applying a means test to a family in respect of a meal which costs less than 4d.—3½d. to 4d.—it is very difficult to determine what parent is not able to pay 4d. for a meal and a means test cut as fine as that would not work. Apart from that, the school managers and school teachers, who are the people who might be asked to do this, are in fact protected by the Act itself from either taking part in the scheme or refraining from taking part in the scheme; and we know ourselves that they have, in fact, protested against being instruments of imposing a means test on the children. All those factors contributed down through the years to, I suppose, turning a blind eye to the fact that Section 2, if it did apply, was not being administered. 1181. That means that Section 2 is, in fact, unworkable? It cannot be administered? We will go on to Section 3. The minute of the Minister for Finance of the 24th February, 1956, says:— “… that local authorities have power to operate the service on a non-contributory basis under Section 3 of the 1914 Act, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.” 1182. In the Act there is a carefully preserved distinction between food and meals?—I thought that at first, when reading Section 3 as down through the section they used the word “food”; but right at the end they used the phrase “the provision of food in meals.” 1183. But that is countered by the fact that it is in meals under the Act, which would include Section 2?—Quite so. I suggest that that is one way out of it— the point you have just made. Section 3 deals with the provision of food and Section 1 deals with the provision of meals, and meals to all children in a particular school, whereas Section 3 is confined to children who, through lack of food, are not in a position to take advantage of their education, and the proof is that in no case under Section 3 are all the children in a school getting meals. It never reaches higher than 70 to 75 per cent., so that some discrimination is being exercised by the local authorities. 1184. I wonder on what basis could they exercise that discrimination? — I could not answer that definitely, except to presume that there are some children who refuse it, who just elect not to take the meal. 1185. It says in Section 3 that local authorities must do roughly four things:— “Where the local authority resolve that any of the children attending a national school within their area are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them, and have ascertained that funds other than public funds are not available or are insufficient in amount to defray the cost of food furnished in meals under this Act they may apply to the Local Government Board for Ireland and that Board may authorise them to spend out of the rates such sum as will meet the cost of the provision of such food provided….” Mr. Keady.—That proviso is repealed. Chairman.—I take it that each local authority has to pass a resolution?—That is right. 1186. Deputy Bartley.—Is it an annual resolution or a standing resolution?—It is a standing resolution. The circular puts it quite clearly:— “Before deciding to organise arrangements for the purpose, the local authority must first satisfy themselves that there are children attending a national school in the district who are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of the education provided for them and that adequate funds other than the rates are not available to defray the costs of the requisite food. If these conditions exist in the district the local authority might pass a formal resolution (copy annexed) containing a statement to that effect and making application to the Minister for authority to expend from the rates such sums as may be necessary to meet the cost of the provision of food in the school meals.” Then, the formal resolution is attached. 1187. Chairman.—In view of the fact that in some years there may be, in fact, no children who “by reason of lack of food are unable to take full advantage of the education provided,” how far do you require local authorities to satisfy themselves that the two requirements of the Acts are being met in their areas by passing a resolution?—It is done by means of certificates from the school manager. In Dublin he certifies that the amount expended is within the terms of Section 3. 1188. But that would not comply with the statutory resolution that is required? —I take it that once the resolution is passed and is standing it is only then necessary to verify from time to time through the manager’s certificate. 1189. Deputy Sheldon.—How could such a condition apply for all time? The local authority has to be satisfied that there are some children who need the food and also have to ascertain that there are no funds other than public funds available. Surely you could not say that the local authority could pass a resolution for all time that those two things could be satisfied?—It should be subject to review from time to time. I suggest that the condition is met by the necessary certificate. I think there is a point in Section 3 that we may not be adverting to, that is, “unable by reason of lack of food.” I do not take that to mean lack of food due to financial stringency in the home but lack of food due to too long a period between meals. It is a question of nutritional deficiency being met and not financial deficiency. 1190. Deputy Bartley.—That is going into the matter in unnecessary detail. With regard to the question raised by Deputy Sheldon about the resolution, if it does not say you must have this resolution renewed periodically, can it be assumed that the original resolution stands? Since the manager has been mentioned, does this Act provide for the manager being accepted as a local authority for the purpose of this Act? Deputy Sheldon.—It is the manager of the school. Deputy Bartley.—Is the manager of the school accepted under this Act as the local authority?—No. He certifies to the local authority. 1191. The original Act provided for urban areas. There was an amendment of that Act, I take it, extending the service to all national schools? Is that correct?—The 1930 Act extended the definition of urban districts to include Town Commissioners, but it does not go any further than that. 1192. The only other School Meals Act you have then is the Gaeltacht one, I take it?—That is right. 1193. Deputy Sheldon.—Where in the 1914 or 1917 Acts is it limited? I have only seen reference to a local authority? —It is a definition in Section 5 of the 1914 Act. The expression “local authority shall mean an urban district council including a county borough council.” 1194. Chairman.—How many local authorities use this scheme and, in respect of each local authority, could you give the date upon which it passed the resolution required under Section 3?— I can answer the first part of the question. Sixty-one local authorities operate the scheme, four county boroughs, 43 urban districts and 14 towns. With regard to the second part of the question, I know that up to 1917 there were 15 such schemes. That was before the recoupment provision came in and even when the total cost was borne on the rates subject to a limit of ½d. in the £ there were actually 15 schemes. There were six in 1918 and four in 1919. I have not got any later figures than those. 1195. Could you say how many of the local authorities associate with committees for the purpose of administration?—We have about four cases where they operate a scheme partly under Section 1 and partly under Section 3. Bray Urban Council is one, but that was to some extent accidental. They were operating under Section 3 and then the school programme was changed in such a way that the children of one particular school—I think it was a convent—could not get home for meals. They supplied those children with meals subject to contributions which are being paid so that the Bray scheme is mainly under Section 3 and marginally in respect of a few children under Section 1. 1196. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—The Accounting Officer read out a list of schools which qualified for the meal. He also mentioned certain towns that were outside Dublin. How would they qualify? —The 1930 Act brought in Town Commissioners. 1197. Chairman. — What degree of supervision is carried out directly by the Department over the local authority schemes? — We have in general three methods of control. First of all, the supply of food is done by tender and we have to approve the tenders as to cost and type of meal. We have a second line of approach through the county medical officers of health who were required, when the Department of Local Government and Public Health had this scheme, to report annually as to the administration of the scheme in their areas from the point of view of hygiene and nutrition. They still in many cases continue to report to us. We have a third line. Whenever we receive any complaints or have any reason to think there might be maladministration, an officer of the Department will visit the schools while meals are being served and see the scheme in operation and suggest any steps necessary to remove inefficiency. 1198. Have any reports been received from the officers of the Minister on the result of their inquiries as to the necessity or otherwise of providing meals for the children?—In connection with the methods of control, I should have added one other point. We have a Local Government auditor as well as a fourth line of attack. With regard to the result of inquiries the one case I remember most is where allegations of waste were made. It was found, on investigation, that there was some substance in this complaint and the local authority was urged to take steps to combat this waste and they did, in fact, do so. The main cause of waste was that the food was unpalatable, particularly for the younger children. They could not stomach the bread and cheese sandwiches. They were made more palatable and this had the effect of wiping out a lot of the complaints. 1199. Deputy Sheldon.—The Accounting Officer referred to tenders being taken. What is asked for in the tenders? —With regard to the details, I am not au fait but I presume it is the quotations given for the supply of a certain number of meals of a particular type—so many bottles of milk, cut sandwiches of different kinds, meat sandwiches one day, cheese sandwiches another day and so on. 1200. As I read the 1914 Act, it does make a careful differentiation between the supply of a meal and the supply of food. I take it that it is a caterer who would tender? If a caterer supplies something that is prepared, inevitably the cost will include a charge for turning the food into a meal, and as I read the 1914 Act that part of the cost is not recoupable. That seems to me to come under Sections 1 and 2 and I am wondering whether in regard to that type of tender it is possible to segregate the food from the meal?—That is a nice point, but I would assume that what the caterer tenders for is the supply of food in a particular form — cut pan loaves, milk in bottles, and so on. 1201. Having regard to the way the 1914 Act is framed the distinction between the provision of a meal and the food in the meal is clearly drawn. It is obvious to me anyway that what was envisaged was that meals should be provided in schools by school meals committees. The meals could come from various sources. It might be provided by the school meals committee itself or it might be provided by the local authority. The way the whole Act hangs together seems to me to make it quite clear that under Section 3 nothing was envisaged except making good the lack of food for these meals under Sections 1 and 2 so that if the State is, in fact, recouping local authorities for something more than food it is going outside the Act?—We have taken it that it is the cost of the food we are recouping excluding administration costs. 1202. Surely the caterers’ tender would include some charge for preparation?—It does of course. You are perfectly right. They have to employ people cutting up the pan loaves. Deputy Sheldon. — No allowance is made for that. It is taken in bulk. 1203. Chairman.—In how many areas could you buy at wholesale prices and in how many areas have you to pay retail prices? — I understand that the local authorities in some districts actually get wholesale prices. We check the prices then from information at our disposal in the office. 1204. Could you say how many districts are involved? Is Dublin involved?—They receive tenders, yes. 1205. Do they all buy at wholesale prices? — Firms of caterers tender in Dublin and so they are contractors and it is not wholesale prices. They do not buy from the wholesaler in Dublin. They buy from caterers who are entitled, I suppose, to retail prices except in so far as they cut them to achieve the contract. 1206. Deputy Sheldon. — Would you agree that Section 2 is an important part of the Act of 1914?—At first sight, yes. 1207. You have said, I think, that it is not actually now in operation?—It is not in operation, taking the scheme as a whole. There are a few odd cases where contributions are collected from children. 1208. Do you intend in the future to continue running this in an extrastatutory way?—It is a most unsatisfactory position. We have a section of an Act which is of doubtful validity and which it is impossible to work. It is still in the Act all the time. I think that possibly the proper thing for me to do is, whenever the next opportunity occurs of having an amending Act, to put up amendments 1209. It looks to me also as if the wording of the subhead in the Vote is not quite proper in the sense that it refers to meals furnished under the regulations. As you know, they are not furnished under the regulations but under the Statute. Is it not doubtful as to whether you could say: “Furnished subject to the regulations”?—I do not think the fact that Article 8 is ultra vires invalidates the whole thing. 1210. There is nothing in the regulations which has anything to do with the granting of the money?—The Minister has to be satisfied that his wishes are being carried out. He can refuse to give the full 50 per cent. of the recoupments, if he so desires. But, “under the regulations” is a bit misleading, is it not?—It is really under the Act. 1211. Deputy Bartley. — Does the Act provide for the making of regulations? —Yes. 1212. Chairman. — Have the Department of Finance any fixed views on this subject? Miss Keily.—I think our outlook about it is rather timid. We feel that it is not too sure that it will be any economy if you undertake legislation to make the Acts clear. 1213. Deputy Sheldon. — Surely the Department of Finance can hardly sit by and allow a statute to be operated wrongly and sanction the spending of money when it is doubtful whether the Act is being complied with? Miss Keily. — The first person who would be responsible for seeing that the wishes of the Legislature were put into operation would be the Minister for Social Welfare. Our duty, I think, would be to see that he did that as cheaply as possible. 1214. Deputy Sheldon.—Whether it was statutory or not? Miss Keily. — I do not think there would be any moral obligation on us to correct the Minister for Social Welfare. 1215. Chairman. — We are also concerned with the constant rise in the provision for these school meals. In 1944/45 this provision was only £59,000. In the year of account, 1953/54, it was £76,000. The latest provision is for £84,000. When it is considered that the actual expenditure, when the local authority contribution is included, is double this sum, the cost of the meals seems to be high. Are you satisfied as regards the supervision of the scheme, apart from statutory complications?—It is some years since an officer of the Department went out. We have not received any complaints. No suggestion has been made that the scheme is worked otherwise than efficiently. If inefficiency is brought to our notice we certainly will have the scheme surveyed again. As to costs, I think much of that is due to the rise in the price of food itself, associated with the fact that a rather better type of meal is being given now than ten years ago. Furthermore, some new schools have come into the scheme in Dublin. About 90 per cent. of the cost occurs in Dublin. 1216. Deputy O’Hara.—What would be the increase in respect of the cost of foodstuffs?—I cannot isolate it from the general figure. I suggest it is an element in the increasing cost but to what extent I do not know. It is running now about 3¾d. and it used to be under 2d. 1217. Deputy Sheldon.—Has there been a change in the type of meal served?— Yes. The meal consists of one-third of a pint of milk with sandwiches. On one day the sandwiches consist of bread, butter and cheese. On another day they consist of bread, butter and meat. Sometimes the meal consists of meat and vegetables. Another day they consist of bread, butter and jam and on another day a sweetened bun. That is the position in Dublin. There are some cases where they supply soup or hot cocoa. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—In the country districts they certainly do not provide elaborate meals like that. Deputy Bartley. — No, not by any means. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Bread, butter and jam is all they get. 1218. Deputy Bartley.—I take it we are discussing legal validity. I think we have been digressing. It is very difficult to grasp this question when you come up against it for the first time, as is my experience here to-day. I have been listening very attentively. On the question of validity, I take it we are ignoring the regulations and concentrating on Section 3. Is that so?—We are not quite ignoring the regulations. The article in the regulations which refers to a means test is inoperative because it is illegal. 1219. You said that the invalidity of No. 8 does not invalidate the rest of the regulations. Did you not say that?—Yes. However, it seems to me that it has been agreed here in this discussion that this question of invalidity must be decided on the interpretation of Section 3. Is that so?—I take it the question to be decided is the interpretation of Section 3 in relation to Section 2. 1220. Very well. Let me ask a further question so that I can get this matter clear in my own mind. Bray is the only place that has been mentioned at this meeting here to-day in which the supervision of meals as provided for in Section 2 has been carried out?—There are three other places. Deputy Bartley.—That comes to four places, out of the 61 that have been mentioned. In the 57 other places, I take it the meals are being supplied under the provisions of Section 3. Is that correct? Chairman.—Yes. Mr. Keady.—Yes. 1221. Deputy Bartley. — In these 57 cases, has the local authority in each case done each of the three things mentioned in Section 3? Has it resolved? Has it ascertained? Has it applied to the Local Government Board?—Except where they are acting under Section 2 in which case the Act itself gives them power. The local authority may take such steps as they think fit for the provision of meals for children in attendance at any national school in their area and may for that purpose associate themselves with any committee on which the local authority are represented, etc. It does not require any resolution or any confirmation by the Minister for Social Welfare. 1222. Deputy Bartley.—Does that mean that where a committee exists for this purpose—— Mr. Keady.—Sometimes an ad hoc committee is set up as in Edenderry, a parish committee. 1223. Deputy Sheldon.—Do you mean that they are operating Section 2?—To the extent that they are getting contributions. For instance, in Edenderry the schools meals scheme is administered by a parish committee which subscribes £50 or £60 a year. The parish committee raise funds to operate the expenses of the scheme. 1224. Chairman.—What about Bray?— They were wholly under Section 3 until a change in the school curriculum made it necessary to keep children there who could afford to pay for their meals, and who did pay. 1225. The latest minute from the Minister for Finance seems to suggest that now all is well in view of Regulation 8 being ultra vires. That is the impression I gathered from that minute. Would Finance agree, in relation to their latest minute, that because Regulation 8 is ultra vires—— Miss Keily.—That we feel all is well? Chairman.—Yes. Miss Keily.—We feel it is as well to let well enough alone. Deputy A. Barry.—That is the beginning and end of the whole trouble. Deputy Bartley. — Our purpose as a Public Accounts Committee is to ensure that the moneys provided by the Oireachtas are spent in accordance with the relevant Acts of Parliament. Is that not so? 1226. Chairman.—Yes. Could the witness give us an idea of the dates of the resolutions? Mr. Keady.—They were made in any year from 1914 up to, I suppose, the end of the First World War. The Custom House fire took place about 1921. 1227. Would it be possible for you to give us a memorandum as to the number of children in each area and the cost, respectively, in each area?—The number of schools?* The number of schools, yes, and the number of children? — You require the number of schools and the number of children in each of the 61 areas. Is there anything else, Sir? And the cost in each area respectively. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—I should like to have an idea of what they are getting in the way of meals. Chairman. — Yes. The menu, the variety. Deputy O’Hara.—There would be a big difference. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Yes; it varies. 1228. Deputy Sheldon.—You did mention vegetables?—Yes, in Dublin. Are they cooked vegetables? Where is the cooking done?—They get meat and vegetables on one day in Dublin. I take it they are fresh vegetables, not tinned. 1229. Is that meal cooked in the school or cooked by the caterer?—I am informed that it is cooked in the schools—convent schools. Deputy Sheldon.—That would comply with the Act all right. 1230. Chairman. — Would you also please include the cost of each variety of meal? 1231. Deputy Sheldon. — Article 11, paragraph 2 of the regulations provides that an officer of the Minister may inquire into the adequacy of the arrangements and the efficiency of the work and so on. Is it possible that that is also ultra vires?—I do not think so because the actual wording of the section under which the regulation is made refers to that very point — the adequacy of the arrangements. 1232. He is also required to inquire into the necessity or otherwise of providing meals at any national school. That looks to me as if that part of it did not deal with the efficiency and so on but rather with the provisions of Section 3, as to whether the children need the food? —Need it from the nutritional point of view? Yes? — I think a question like that could be answered by the Department by reference to the time table in the school and the distances of the homes from the school, the frequency of buses, and so on, if the children had to be kept in school for a certain length of time. I think that is answered in that way. 1233. I think that probably when the Act was being drafted they had a different interpretation on reasonable lack of food but I do not see that it cannot be changed?—I think that goes to the root of the matter, that class distinctions in 1914 were quite different from what they are now. Deputy Sheldon.—It shows the danger of Private Members’ Bills. 1234. Chairman.—I think you said in evidence, Mr. Keady, that there were reports from officers in the last two years. Am I correct in that?—A written report? From officers of the Department?—It is four years ago, Sir. 1235. Would the officers have any indication of, say, the degree of supervision exercised by the local authorities?—I am informed that they rely mainly on the report of the county medical officer of health. It is really his function. 1236. Deputy Bartley. — Would the resolution referred to in Section 3 be an executive or a reserved function under the Managerial Acts?—I do not think the passing of the resolution has anything to do with the manager. I think the manager has a function in the actual spending of the money. 1237. It says here, “Where the local authority resolve”. The use of the word “resolve” rather than “resolves” indicates that it was the body of elected representatives they had in mind but the Managerial Acts have been brought into operation since then and there has been a segregation of duties. In which category would this resolution fall? Would it be a matter for the elected body or for the managerial authority?—Well, I think that the resolution idea began before the managerial system was introduced but under the managerial system I understand that the manager has power by making an order to achieve the same result as a resolution. Yes, provided that this particular matter would, by the Managerial Acts be brought within his ken. It may be reserved to the council. Can anybody here answer that? To whom does authority in the matter fall? Is the making of such resolution a reserved function? Chairman.—We could ask the Accounting Officer to include that in the memorandum and also to include if possible, the degree of supervision exercised by the Department and by the local authority in turn.* 1238. Deputy O’Hara. — Could Mr. Keady say when it is proposed to introduce this legislation to clear up this whole matter?—Well, I did not say that. Chairman.—That is not his function. Deputy Bartley. — Deputy O’Hara should know that civil servants are not legislators. Chairman.—Thank you very much for giving us all the information and help that you have given us. We are very grateful to you, Mr. Keady. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. * See Appendix XVI (1). * See Appendix XVI (2). * See Appendix XVI (2). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
