81. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection if he is aware of concerns raised about the nutritional value of school meals; if he has considered utilising non-profit groups like an organisation (details supplied) for this service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21757/25]

Sentiment score: 0.20

My question is fairly straightforward. I am aware the Minister is doing a review. I have corresponded with him with regard to taking the profit motive out of school meal provision to the greatest extent possible. Has the Minister examined that or is he open to further discussion or consideration of it? My question cites the meals on wheels service but there are obviously others that would fulfil similar criteria.

Sentiment score: 0.16

I thank the Minister for his response. The reason I raised this issue is that I have a concern about the nutritional quality. Parents cannot control the quality of the food, although they can select from the menu of options. Concerns have been raised about the traceability of food and labelling such as "pasta sauce". At the end of the day, the companies that are involved in this have a loyalty to their profits and business. I am talking to the Minister as he is wearing both of his hats. He looks after part of the school meals programme but also has responsibility for community employment, Tús, the rural social scheme and other schemes. That would be very beneficial. Will he consider not-for-profit provision? We saw what happened in England with turkey twizzlers and all that kind of stuff. We do not want to go down that road. My fear is we are part way down it already and we need to pull it back. The best way to do that is to remove the profit motive from that programme.

Sentiment score: 0.14

On Tuesday this week, I attended a presentation on the meals on wheels network. There was a representative from the Minister's office there as well. The network is absolutely fantastic. Day in and day out, the volunteers do a really good job. It is not just a food delivery service but they are really conscious about the quality of the food. They have a more hands-on approach. They are local. They do not have a corporate office so they might struggle to put in a very swanky and slick tender into a tender process. They do not have that kind of backup or administrative support. I welcome the fact that the Minister will consider getting the nutritional review to have a look at that. To the greatest extent possible, if we can remove the profit motive from the school meals programme, there will be benefits for the children, social benefits that come out of that, but also local benefits. Taxpayers' money could not be spent more wisely than putting it into the meals on wheels network. Next week I will attend the celebration of 50 years of Balbriggan meals on wheels. It provides an absolutely exemplary service. I am really looking forward to it. The recipients of the service have good words to say about it when I talk to them. It is about the nutritional value as well as the service of calling to people's doors.

Sentiment score: 0.25

83. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection if he is aware that there is a disparity in the assessment of child maintenance across different forms of supports; if he will give consideration to standardising this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21758/25]

Sentiment score: 0.13

While I am aware the Department does not use child maintenance as a criterion by which to assess, it is alone in that regard. It is incredibly hit and miss across local authorities. Some count it whereas others do not. Does the Minister agree that child maintenance is for children and should not be considered as part of means tests for essential supports for adults and families? I hope the Department takes the lead on this because there is no standardisation, not even across local authorities. Part of the reason for that is each Department is making up its own rules, as are the local authorities. Standardisation is needed. I am hoping the Minister will work with me to develop and ensure that is achieved.

Sentiment score: 0.12

There are 190,000 children in Ireland today classified as at risk of poverty. Child maintenance is essential. I find it incongruous that although child maintenance is absolutely essential, it is included in assessments for some necessary supports. I welcome the Minister’s words. I hope he will work with me across party lines on this matter. No one will disagree with the idea that child maintenance should not be included when calculating assessments for supports because those supports are often for families, whereas child maintenance is for the child. Given those stark statistics and the fact that organisations such as Social Justice Ireland tell us that all once-off payments, which the Minister said will be discontinued, do is mask an increasing trend of child poverty, that needs to be tackled. The Minister can send a message to families on low incomes and people dependent on supports and payments by saying what is recognised by the Department of Social Protection must be recognised by all other Departments.

Sentiment score: 0.13

We will consider this as part of the work programme if I have anything to do with it. The Minister rightly highlighted that it is confusing when different methods of assessment are used. While he said there are sometimes valid reasons for this, there are actually no valid reasons for including child maintenance in assessments. The louder we say that and the more people we say that to, the more likely it is that this will be standardised across the board. The aspect that is confusing for people is they cannot understand why child maintenance is included for one payment but disregarded for another. It should be disregarded for all of them. It is not a payment to the family; it is a payment to the child. We need to be clear in that regard. I welcome the Minister’s words and I hope this is something on which we can work together. I will most definitely have it on the agenda for the work programme for the incoming social protection committee.

Sentiment score: 0.01