Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 14 January 2026
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Youth
Hot School Meals Programme: Discussion
2:00 am
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Apologies have been received from the Cathaoirleach, Deputy Cathal Crowe, who is New Jersey in the USA on behalf of the joint committee, Senator Tully, who is also representing the committee in New Jersey, and Deputy Coppinger. Everyone is very welcome today. I ask anyone attending remotely to mute themselves when not contributing so that we do not pick up any background noise or feedback. As usual, I remind all those in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are either on silent mode or switched off entirely. Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that in order to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex.
As the witnesses are within the precincts of Leinster House, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to this committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Leas-Chathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside of the Houses, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
The item on the agenda for today's meeting is an evaluation of the impact of the school meals programme. I welcome Ms Deirdre Matthews, general secretary of the Joint Managerial Body; Mr. Paul Thornton, assistant general secretary of the Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools; Mr. Seamus Mulconry, general secretary of the Catholic Primary Schools Management Association; Mr. Mark McDonald, director of schools at the Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board, representing Education and Training Boards Ireland; Mr. Paul Crone, director of the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals; Ms Frances Kerry, trustee of the National Association of Boards of Management in Special Education; and Dr. Emer Nowlan, chief executive officer of Educate Together.
I will call the witnesses to make their opening statement in the following order: Ms Matthews, followed by Mr. Thornton, Mr. Mulconry, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Crone, Ms Kerry and Dr. Nowlan. They each have five minutes. The opening statements will be followed by questions from members of the committee.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
I thank the committee for the invitation. I am speaking on behalf of the Joint Managerial Body, which represents 379 voluntary secondary schools serving over 224,000 students. Our full written submission, which the committee has received, sets out the detailed evidence and data. In my opening remarks I will focus on a number of key points from a post-primary perspective. These are the current reach of the scheme in voluntary secondary schools, student need and access, resourcing and infrastructure, and the case for a post-primary specific evaluation.
On the current reach of the school meals programme, while hot school meals are not currently part of the scheme at post-primary level, free school meals are available in DEIS-designated schools and a limited number of other schools. In the 2024-2025 school year, 66 of our 379 schools within the DEIS scheme participated in the programme and a further 30 voluntary secondary schools continue to participate on a legacy basis, having been included in the programme prior to the introduction of DEIS in 2005. Based on the data provided by the Department of Social Protection, the programme currently supports 52,900 students in voluntary secondary schools across a range of meal types, including breakfast, snack and lunch provision. These figures demonstrate that, even in its current form, the programme plays a significant role in supporting students at post-primary level.
Turning to student need and access at post-primary level, Government policy consistently frames the school meals programme as an educational and social inclusion measure intended to ensure children can fully benefit from education. The policy intent is sound and well established, but evidence commissioned by the JMB from the ESRI clearly shows that economic vulnerability is not confined to DEIS-designated schools. The ESRI found that students from economically vulnerable families fare less well across a range of outcomes, including participation, well-being and life satisfaction, and that schools serving disadvantaged communities outside the DEIS programme often struggle to meet the high levels of student need. From a post-primary perspective, this is a critical point. It means that while DEIS targeting is appropriate, DEIS status alone is not a perfect proxy for need. Some economically vulnerable students attending non-DEIS voluntary secondary schools are currently outside the scope of the programme. This evidence supports the case for reviewing access criteria at post-primary level so that eligibility better reflects student need rather than school designation alone.
My third point concerns resourcing and infrastructural realities in post-primary schools. Schools strongly support the objectives of the school meals programme, but delivery at post-primary level presents real operational challenges. Guidance from the Government and the Department of Social Protection is clear that funding under the programme is for food only. Administration of the scheme, including procurement, co-ordination, record-keeping and day-to-day management, rests with schools and must be absorbed within existing resources. For voluntary secondary schools, this can place additional pressure on already constrained budgets and, in some cases, lead schools to rely on fundraising or parental contributions to sustain participation in what is a State-funded social inclusion measure from the Department of Social Protection.
Infrastructure is a further constraint. Many post-primary schools, particularly those in older buildings, lack adequate food storage, refrigeration and distribution areas or suitable dining spaces. While cold meals require less infrastructure than hot meals, even cold meal provision often depends on facilities schools simply do not have. The introduction of hot school meals at post-primary level would therefore require significant planned capital investment by the State alongside a phased and realistic implementation approach.
The positive potential impact on students is my fourth point. From the perspective of school leaders, access to school meals at post-primary level has the potential to make a meaningful, positive contribution to student well-being and engagement and learning. Schools report improved concentration and participation during the school day, particularly in the afternoon, where students have reliable access to food.
There is a perceived link between access to meals and attendance and punctuality for some students who might otherwise arrive late, leave early or disengage due to hunger or fatigue. While much of this evidence is necessarily anecdotal, it is consistent across our schools and aligns with international research, indicating that school meal programmes are associated with improved diet quality, food security and students' readiness to learn, particularly those from an economically vulnerable background.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Would Ms Matthews mind concluding?
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Her full speech will be published on the committee's website. This is to allow everyone the same time.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
In conclusion, the JMB strongly supports the school meals programme. We believe that with appropriate access and criteria, adequate resourcing, realistic infrastructure planning and robust post-primary evaluation, the programme has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to student well-being and educational participation at school second level.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Ms Matthews very much. I advise other speakers that we have a clock and we are all working from it so as to try to keep to the time.
I invite Mr. Thornton to make his presentation.
Mr. Paul Thornton:
We thank the committee for the invitation to present on the impact of the hot school meals programme. The Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools represents the boards of management of 97 multidenominational post-primary schools in Ireland. The ACCS welcomes the opportunity to engage in this Oireachtas joint committee hearing on the impact of the hot school meals programme, which is welcomed in our schools and in a broad sense has a positive impact on students. Having consulted with our schools that operate the programme, the main impacts on schools can be summarised as follows.
It is viewed as having a positive impact on students' attendance at school and their engagement. It has provided families with a reliable provision of daily sustenance, which in some cases may not otherwise be provided. The programme has had a meaningful impact on students' well-being. The programme requires further development and resourcing so that it can be more effective and useful to schools. Currently, in our 97 schools, 48 are involved in some way with grant funding for the provision of food. In a broad way, 39 are involved in providing a breakfast club, 25 in running dinner clubs and 24 in running lunch clubs. The programme has had a broad impact. The school meals programme has had a significant positive effect on student well-being, engagement and participation, but that is anecdotal. Research in a formal fashion would assist us in defining whether that is the case. In addition to enhancing the ability of students to focus and learn throughout the school day, the programme supports social inclusion by fostering shared mealtimes and reducing food insecurity among vulnerable groups. As Ms Matthews has pointed out, consistent access to nutritious food has improved student engagement and concentration in afternoon classes. Teachers consistently highlight that.
However, schools face considerable financial pressures in maintaining and expanding the programme. These challenges are further compounded by operational costs that remain outside the scope of the school meals funding, including essential supplies and utilities as well as infrastructural requirements for food preparation and storage. Another area that militates against the smooth running of the programme is procurement, in that it is a complex and resource-intensive process that affects the quality and continuity of this programme. In addition to navigating an often cumbersome tendering process, schools face challenges in maintaining fair competition, managing supplier relationships and adopting to changing requirements. However, it should be highlighted that the ACCS broadly welcomes the programme because there are many different successful aspects to it. Where it is fully implemented, the programme has been highly successful and, it could be argued, transformational both in an educational and social context. It delivers clear and demonstrative benefits for students, supporting nutrition, engagement, social cohesion and attendance.
However, we must not ignore the significant financial, administrative and procurement challenges that undermine its sustainability and restrict its full potential. The successful implementation of freshly prepared on-site hot meals where it is achievable showcases what schools can do, but it has to be pointed out to the committee that in many schools it is not practically possible to do so. Addressing current operational and funding barriers, particularly around procurement flexibility, infrastructure funding and administrative demands, would enable schools to extend these benefits to all students and provide consistent access to high-quality meals, including the aspiration of offering a hot meal daily to almost every child in Ireland, if possible. However, we would make the recommendation that if possible, a proper and formal form of research be carried out in order to ensure we can get the most out of this programme. We would ask that the student voice be included in this piece of research because at the end of the day they are the customers and the recipients.
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
Good afternoon. I am the general secretary of the Catholic Primary School Management Association, CPSMA. We provide supports to 2,800 Catholic schools and shared services to our colleagues in the Muslim board of education and the Church of Ireland board of education. We have been dealing with this issue for some time and have some degree of experience in it. At the outset, we wish to acknowledge the positive impact that a stable and nutritious diet has on a child's learning. The CPSMA also recognises the challenges many families encounter in terms of homelessness, poverty and the cost of living, which makes the provision of hot school meals even more impactful, particularly in our DEIS schools.
Notwithstanding the positive impact of providing a hot meal to these children, the CPSMA has some concerns around the school meals programme. If I were to distil our concerns I would say that the school meals programme in the primary sector is worth about €300 million. The State is channelling €300 million to private sector companies, through schools. However, the State is providing no administrative support for principals to procure or to manage the scheme. In effect what is happening is that primary schools are subventing a State programme. This programme is very welcome, but the level of administration for primary schools, and particularly for principals, is unacceptable. We did some research a few years ago where we found that 67% of school principals would benefit from an intervention around stress. When we looked to see what was the best intervention to deal with stress, we found it was secretarial hours. The stress burden on principals is strong and it is mainly coming from the level of administration and this scheme is adding to it.
If a principal wants to publish something on the eTenders website and knows what they are doing, it will take about three hours. If the principal does not know, it is a painful experience. I have tried publishing stuff and it is incredibly difficult. This is added to the fact that principals have to manage the scheme. For the first time, principals have trouble with rodents and infestations which did not exist before in schools. They are also having to manage the relationship with parents because children may not like the food. This scheme is adding to the administrative burden quite considerably. This year, UNESCO published a new piece of research clearly showing that the increased administrative burden is having an impact on school outcomes, so we are in fact harming the children we want to support. I urge the committee to recommend the provision of proper resources so that schools can administer this scheme, but not at the expense of teaching and learning.
Mr. Mark McDonald:
Chairman and members of the committee, I am director of schools with Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board.
I am representing Education and Training Boards Ireland, ETBI. I thank the committee for its invitation to attend its discussion on evaluation of the impacts of the hot school meals programme. In the context of Irish schools, ETBI is the representative body for the State's 16 education and training boards. Together we are directly responsible for 246 post-primary schools, 129 of which, or 52%, are schools within the DEIS scheme. ETBs also manage 31 community national schools in the primary sector. Students in 140 ETB post-primary schools are currently in receipt of some assistance under the school meals programme. This ranges from a breakfast or snack to a cold lunch or dinner. With this background I will make some comments about the scheme. Where these comments echo what has been said by my colleagues, please accept them as reinforcing the points made.
The impact of a single intervention in a school can often be difficult to quantify as there are additional factors to be considered. Having said that, schools using their local knowledge and experience indicate that the scheme has had a favourable impact on student engagement and well-being. This in turn contributes to building a positive culture in the school, creating a better environment for learning. Current challenges with poor school student attendance are widely acknowledged and various initiatives are looking at ways to tackle this. Students attending for only part of a school day is also an issue. Schools report that if they offer school lunch, the probability that students then remain in school for afternoon significantly increases. There is also the benefit that these students are more focused during the afternoon classes, coming to those classes fulfilled.
In relation to the administration of the scheme, the application process and reporting process are relatively straightforward in certain aspects. However, this scheme does not provide the school with any administrative resources. Schools have to implement the scheme from within their already overstretched personnel. In contrast, when the Department of Education and Youth implemented the excellent schoolbooks scheme, dedicated funding was provided to administer the scheme. As the administration and accountability demands on schools are ever increasing, it needs to be recognised that the cost of providing this scheme is not solely the cost per student of the meal delivered.
I turn to other challenges. In a school where a student brings their own lunch they can start eating as soon as lunchtime begins. If a student has to be served lunch there are logistics of queuing, speed of delivery of the meal and erosion of break time. For those who are not at the front of the queue, that can be a serious amount of time. There are also increased supervision demands on teachers. These have to be managed at school level and are not insignificant. The infrastructure of the school building may challenge the physical distribution of school meals, as previously stated, especially in older buildings. Perhaps this needs to be addressed in two phases. First, how can all future buildings be planned so that providing optimal canteen facilities is properly addressed? Second, how can the lack of appropriate facilities in older buildings be ameliorated? Schools are dynamic places, and for a variety of reasons attendance will vary from day to day and therefore consideration has to be given to minimising the amount of food that goes uneaten. In addition, there is a tension between offering a balanced nutritional and evidence-supported diet and the sometimes-fickle eating preferences of our teenagers. The actual menu of food provided goes a long way to addressing this. Schools have been innovative in using surplus food, for example distributing extra school lunches during lunch break or offering it later in the day during homework club or study club. We also have to look at the issue of waste packaging. The extra materials add to the school's cleaning regime and costs, its recycling requirements and environmental considerations. Indeed, in addition to the administrative assistance consideration has to be given to the extra waste disposal requirements and costs.
I will refer to differences in provision throughout the country. Catering firms and providers are more numerous in urban areas and competition hopefully offers greater choices to schools. However, rural schools do not have the same luxury of choice and this needs to be considered to ensure that the quality of service and of meals provided is consistent across all of our schools. Small rural schools may be even less attractive to catering providers due to low numbers as well as the rural setting.
Delivering school meals at post-primary level is a practical investment in reducing inequalities and in student success. There are acknowledged benefits to providing school meals, many of which could be better researched through a formal study of the scheme. There are challenges, many of which can be addressed by additional engagement with stakeholders to enable us to deliver a transformational programme.
Mr. Paul Crone:
On behalf of the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals, NAPD, I thank the committee for the opportunity to be here. The NAPD provides a united voice for post-primary principals and deputy principals across all three post-primary sectors.
In recent years, the Government has embarked on a landmark public policy providing hot nutritious meals to children during the school day. This builds on the legacy scheme that exists in DEIS schools and the rationale, which is to address child hunger and inequality, is most welcome. However, let me start with what I will call the primary-post-primary divide. The scheme only operates in primary schools so while the impact of the hot school meals programme for primary schools has been positive, and while I acknowledge the commitment to expand the programme to post-primary schools by 2030, the impact at post-primary has been negligible, if not non-existent. In fact, I would argue that the positive impact at primary level is being undone at post-primary level. When students transfer from primary to post-primary, many of them will be told there is no access to hot meals in their school. This causes disappointment and frustration among students and parents alike, and has resulted in numerous difficult conversations for school leaders. Students have a legitimate expectation that they will receive a hot meal throughout their school career. Here is the reality: food poverty does not cease when children turn 12. Adolescents' nutritional needs increase significantly during this developmental stage, yet the current structure abandons students precisely when their calorific requirements grow and their capacity to concentrate through long academic days become paramount.
The policy decision to ignore the DEIS programme as the means of expanding the hot school meals compounds this difficulty. Providing hot school meals to all primary schools ahead of post-primary schools is contrary to the principle of equity and tackling disadvantage.
I also draw the attention of the committee to the funding disparity. In DEIS post-primary schools, the current legacy scheme provides €2.30 for students, whereas primary schools receive €3.20 per student. This is a fundamental flaw that significantly disadvantages post-primary students. Older children require larger portions and schools must be funded appropriately to provide them.
I will address the significant administrative burden placed on school leaders. Although the scheme is intended to benefit students, the day-to-day implementation rests heavily with schools themselves. First, there is procurement and supplier management. Schools must engage in competitive tendering processes to secure suppliers in line with procurement law. This is complex and time-consuming for schools that are typically staffed for education. Many schools simply lack the expertise and time to manage these legal and bureaucratic tasks effectively.
Second, principals are responsible for managing accounts, checking invoices and submitting detailed income and expenditure reports.
Third, school leaders must monitor suppliers' compliance with nutritional standards, safety, guidelines and contractual obligations, despite having no direct control over food preparation. This creates an uneasy blend of managerial and educational responsibilities that many principals feel ill-equipped to handle. The prioritisation of compliance over function removes flexibility for post-primary schools to deliver for those students in need. For example, a school can be currently funded for 500 cold lunches, many of which may go unused and wasted, but do not have the autonomy and flexibility to change this to 200 hot lunches for those students who are most in need.
Beyond these structural requirements, school leaders navigate complex daily operational demands, co-ordinating meal delivery schedules, managing dining spaces and supervision, addressing dietary requirements and allergies, handling eligibility queries and resolving daily issues from delivery failures to portion complaints. These tasks consume five to ten hours weekly of senior management time. That time was previously dedicated to instructional leadership, staff development and strategic planning. Previous Oireachtas debates have revealed that school leaders are at breaking point, juggling multiple competing demands. The added responsibilities of this programme stretch already strained administrative capacity to crisis level and the cumulative effect substantially diminishes time available for core leadership responsibilities of schools.
Here is another concern: no additional funding was allocated to the scheme in the 2025 budget. This is the first time since 2019 that this has happened. It is worrying for the expansion of the programme to post-primary.
For the hot school meals programme to succeed, we are making five recommendations: first is a recommendation to extend the programme to all DEIS post-primary schools immediately as a priority; second is a recommendation to increase the post-primary funding allocation to a sufficient level to provide for adolescent nutritional meals; third is a recommendation to provide ring-fenced funding for dedicated administrative and supervision staff; fourth is recommendation to design centralised support structures and streamlined procurement assistance; and fifth is a recommendation to develop funding mechanisms that protect school leaders from undue managerial overload.
The hot school meals programme represents a bold and well-intentioned policy with the potential to reshape child welfare and educational outcomes in Ireland. Those benefits for students cannot be underestimated. However, policy willingness must be matched by practical support for schools and the administrative burden on principals is imposing real stress and diverting time and energy from teaching, pastoral care and school development. If the policy is to be expanded into post-primary schools successfully, policymakers must address these fundamental flaws.
Only then can the programme reach its full potential without detracting from the core mission of schools, which is educating our young people.
Ms Frances Kerry:
I thank the members for the opportunity to address the committee today. The National Association of Boards of Management in Special Education, NABMSE, represents boards of management of special schools and of primary and post-primary mainstream schools with special classes. Our members govern schools educating children and young people aged four to 18 with a wide range of special educational needs including intellectual disabilities; autism; physical disabilities and social, emotional and behavioural needs.
The welfare and well-being of pupils is a core statutory responsibility of boards of management. Nutrition, mealtime routines and safe access to food are particularly significant for pupils with additional educational needs, including those with feeding and eating disorders, medical conditions, sensory sensitivities and complex dietary requirements.
NABMSE welcomed the announcement in budget 2025 extending hot school meals scheme to all remaining primary schools. NABMSE has consistently raised concerns regarding the capacity of the current model to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs. Uptake, well-being and value for money are directly affected by the appropriateness and flexibility of food provision. These concerns include the management of feeding and eating disorders, FEDS, allergies, texture modification, hydration needs, and the absence of integrated therapeutic supports. Where hot meals are available, special schools report clear benefits for pupil health, regulation and engagement. Uptake is high where meals are flexible and appropriate to individual need.
Many special schools are unable to access the scheme in practice due to difficulties sourcing providers. Providers frequently decline to tender and some schools experience delays of several months with no hot meals. Special schools require highly individualised meals. Set menus and bulk cooking models used in mainstream schools are often unsuitable. Orders frequently require modification such as blending or softening of food, additional portions, or allergy management, resulting in increased food and labour costs.
Special schools are not included in the DEIS programme and therefore receive no funding for break-time snacks or drinks. This presents a particular challenges where pupils are on medication that increases appetite or thirst.
Schools report that on-site or nearby kitchens are critical to ensuring quality, flexibility and food safety. Where appropriate kitchen facilities exist, outcomes are improved. The school meals programme has improved access to nutritious food, reduced reliance on junk food and sugary drinks, and contributed to improved behaviour, concentration and engagement. The procurement process is lengthy and resource-intensive placing considerable administrative burden on school management but with good support from the SPU.
Providers report that participation numbers required to break often exceed the enrolment of many small special schools. Providers incur substantially higher costs in special schools due to labour-intensive service, individualised preparation, dietary compliance and food modification, with food costs alone up to 50% higher per pupil than in mainstream settings. Providers emphasise that cooking from scratch in a local or on-site kitchen is essential to ensuring quality, flexibility and safety.
Parents of children with autism and sensory needs report that rigid menus can result in children being unable to eat provided meals, even where requested changes are minimal. In the absence of staff support to adjust meals, pupils may go without food, leading to distress and exclusion. This undermines student voice and can highlight difference rather than inclusion. Students with feeding and eating disorders require integrated supports. Difficulties with eating may arise from physical, sensory, medical or anxiety-related causes. Schools require access to dietitians, speech and language therapists and nursing input through the in-school and other therapy models.
The current per-pupil funding rate does not reflect the true cost of provision in special schools, nor does it account for the absence of DEIS-type supports for snacks and drinks. Funding models linked to actual uptake achieve better nutritional outcomes and lower waste. Small special schools are structurally disadvantaged under the current model. There is no mechanism to facilitate co-operation between neighbouring schools or shared kitchen provision. Inconsistencies in invoicing, monitoring and auditing of providers remain. Strong oversight improves quality, value for money and student outcomes. Where relationships between schools and catering staff are strong, catering personnel become an extension of the school’s pastoral team, supporting student well-being, trust and routine.
Where meals do not align with pupils’ sensory preferences, cultural expectations or individual needs, uptake decreases and food waste increases. Student involvement in menu planning within healthy eating guidelines leads to higher uptake, reduced waste and better nutritional outcomes.
Incentives to respond to student voices, adapt provision and minimise waste are essential. NABMSE would welcome structured engagement with the joint committee and relevant Departments to review and refine the school meals programme so that it is equitable, sustainable and inclusive of pupils with special educational needs.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it today on behalf of Educate Together. We represent a growing network of 118 equality-based primary and second level schools, serving 42,000 children and young people across the country. Our schools are diverse and we are deeply committed to ensuring that every child is supported to reach their full social, personal and academic potential.
Child poverty is one of the most pressing issues in Ireland today. In 2024, one in five children, which is over 250,000 children, were living in households unable to afford essential goods and services and the number of children experiencing consistent poverty has also risen sharply. With more children living in poverty, homelessness and direct provision, hunger and food deprivation are visible now in every school in the country and are affecting children’s well-being, dignity and ability to learn.
Schools provide a stable and supportive environment in the lives of children and we are proud of the excellent work our schools do to ensure that every child has the support, relationships and skills they need to learn, such as through the successful Nurture Schools programme. However, children who are hungry cannot learn and we welcome the expansion of the hot school meals programme and recognise its potential to make a profound difference in children’s lives.
Our submission is informed by a recent survey of Educate Together primary schools. Almost half of our schools responded within 24 hours; these are busy people and this reflects the importance of the scheme and the level of concern about how it is operating at present. The benefits of this scheme are real and should not be understated. For some children, this is the only hot meal they receive in a day. The scheme provides equity and dignity through universal access. Our schools reported reduced hunger, improved concentration, better attendance and greater participation in learning. Parents value the relief from financial and practical pressures and children benefit socially from shared mealtimes and exposure to new foods.
However, the clear message from school management, and the committee has heard it already, is that the current model is not sustainable. The most serious challenge is the administrative and procurement burden placed on schools. In nearly three quarters of our schools, principals themselves manage procurement. This typically takes several days over a number of weeks, followed by an ongoing weekly administrative burden of around five hours or more. This is happening in a system already experiencing severe deficits in administrative capacity. Schools are being asked to operate food procurement, compliance and financial systems without the staffing, expertise or resources to do so safely or sustainably.
Schools also raised concerns about food quality and suitability, particularly for children with allergies, sensory sensitivities or restrictive diets. Over time, menu fatigue or dissatisfaction has led some families to opt out of the scheme. Food and packaging waste is another major issue. Limited flexibility in ordering systems or portion sizes results in large volumes of waste, creating environmental concerns and additional costs for schools. This directly undermines sustainability and climate action objectives. There are also financial pressures. Schools report increased electricity usage, higher waste disposal costs and risks associated with managing substantial public funds without any provision for administrative or overhead costs. Many of these issues were anticipated. The 2022 evaluation of the school meals programme made clear recommendations on co-design with schools, funding for non-food costs, centralised frameworks and integration with food education. These recommendations were largely not implemented.
Our message today is that this is a good policy but with flawed execution. In the short term, schools urgently need additional funding for administration and overheads. In the medium term, schools should be better supported with procurement and contract management, and either the roll-out of the new administration executive role is accelerated or procurement is managed centrally so that schools can focus on children and not on tendering and food waste. In the longer term, the scheme should evolve into a whole-school food and well-being programme, aligned with education, health and climate policy goals. Through initiatives such as Grow at School, which 60% of Educate Together schools now engage with, we can connect meals with food education, sustainability and well-being, maximising educational and social return on public investment. Educate Together believes that no child should be hungry in school and we call for the programme to be reviewed so that it can deliver on its promise for children, for schools, and for society.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Dr. Nowlan. Once I tapped my glass once, the witnesses got into their stride in respect of the five-minute time limit. I thank them. I hope that is remembered when the Deputies and Senators speak in a moment.
We have six minutes allocated for members to make their points, ask their questions and get responses. I will be tapping on the glass if I have to. I call Deputy Cummins.
Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
It is great to hear the depth of research and work the witnesses have done with their schools to see what is happening with school meals. I am contacted on a regular basis by parents, students and school staff to show the variety of food available. Sometimes those reports are very positive but mostly I am sent negative-looking food that I would not eat myself and would not like to give to my children or any students in schools. Those foods are unable to address the nutritional deficits that may arise because of homelessness, because people are living in accommodation that is shocking or because of poverty. I know the issue of nutritional value is being looked at but I am extremely concerned when, as Mr. Mulconry mentioned, we outsource a State-funded programme to a private entity and the schools are administering through that. We do not have the quality that could be there. Schools are saying to me that where the menu is being provided by a private entity, what they are presented with is fantastic at the beginning but if it is not monitored on a regular basis and not challenged, the quality can decrease dramatically. The nutritional value and variety are not there.
I am hearing loudly from everybody that as a principal, you cannot be responsible for leading, teaching and learning in small or large schools when you also have to challenge a provider, who may be your neighbour, friend or whatever else if you are living in a small area, and say that the food is unacceptable. It is a huge burden. What I am hearing from principals and schools is that it is a huge amount of work for a meal. I would much rather, as was mentioned already, that schools would be future-proofed. Any new school building coming along needs to have that big room with the fold-out tables and chairs where children can sit together and eat. That is a part of the process. I have worked in educational disadvantage. I have worked, over decades, with a number of young people who do not have a kitchen table at home and who do not have meals together. That socialisation of eating is so important. We also need to find out how those schools that do not have that capacity now can be retrofitted.
I hear what the witnesses are saying. It is loud and clear. Children who are hungry cannot learn. The fact that there is food in schools is welcome. There was a time when schools only had a bit of food. Now they have loads of food. We seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. It is a matter of the management of that.
Dr. Nowlan said it well when she said it is an excellent programme that is being executed poorly. That is the problem. We must try to find mechanisms to ensure that this programme is universal and great for everybody. We just have not got there yet. It is great to see the input the witnesses are having.
As the witnesses have said, there is such a difference in the funding provided for teenagers. I have two sons who would eat the fridge in one day. I go shopping and all the food is gone. That is the same for every teenager, particularly boys. I also have two girls, who need to eat a different amount. Providing more money to primary schools and less to secondary schools makes no sense because they eat more at secondary school. They are bigger, burn more calories and do more sport and all the other things. That needs to be addressed.
My comments are centred on the fact that I hear the witnesses loud and clear. I always like to leave time for the witnesses to say anything else they did not get to say and would like to say now. The curse of going first is that I do not have the chance to hear what everybody else asks. If there is anything that the witnesses have not had the chance to say, there are almost two minutes available now. I am particularly interested in special schools and the fact that there is a whole other level of need. That is in special schools. In mainstream, there are also special classes. How is the issue being addressed there? Perhaps that is my question.
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
I will come in briefly. There was one point I had intended to make, which was around halal food. We have an increasing number of children in our schools who are of the Muslim faith. They are finding it extremely difficult to identify providers that will give genuine halal food.
My colleagues on the Muslim board of education say that one of their schools has refused to go near the scheme because they just cannot guarantee that the food is appropriate. There was a social media controversy about a year ago where people were saying children were being fed halal meat. The point of fact is that we do not know what it is.
Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The same goes for kosher food regarding the other denominations who also require that. I had the opportunity to visit some schools in Bristol in the UK. There was a very wide variety of provision. Whatever type of food pupils ate was provided and it was costed so some could afford more or afford less. We are talking about free school meals here but maybe we need to look at that costing part.
Mr. Mark McDonald:
I was previously a school completion programme co-ordinator in running out the meal scheme across north Dublin. The big issue that came back, when the hunger had abated in certain families or in certain areas, was that the social element of these meals is absolutely huge. As the Deputy said, students sitting down together, especially at lunch time ahead of an afternoon session of school, can have huge positive benefits.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
This is an education committee and this programme is under the Department of Social Protection. I call on the Department to acknowledge the administrative burden, the infrastructural deficits and the ongoing operational management required for this, and to support the Department of Education and Youth by funding that because what is taken from one part of the school system is coming from another part. While this is an education committee, there really does need to be a strong input to the Department of Social Protection.
As we speak, we are all speaking to anecdotal evidence and to views and opinions. There is a real need for independent research into the impact of what we currently have and what a good model might look like.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for being here today and for their contributions. They have genuinely been hugely beneficial. When we read them and listen to them, the message is very clear. Mr. Crone's contribution sums up what is clearly coming across, stating:
The hot school meals programme represents a bold and well-intentioned policy with the potential to reshape child welfare and educational outcomes in Ireland. The positive benefits for students cannot be underestimated.
That sums up everything all the witnesses have said regarding the positive side of it. The challenges are very clear. I acknowledge that Ms Mathews just highlighted some of those, such as the administrative burden, in her previous contribution.
I will try to not repeat too much of what has been contributed so far. Mr. Mulconry touched on a public service obligation in his written submission. Mr. McDonald mentioned it as well around smaller rural schools, as did Ms Kerry about numbers in special schools. I would like to touch on the access for those smaller schools, rural schools or isolated schools to begin with. We had quite a headache at the start of this academic year in my constituency in north Tipperary and across the country. They were mostly at primary level but schools had their tenders pulled at the last minute. I want to get the witnesses' views on the PSO that could be part of this or what could be done for schools that have smaller numbers of pupils, are rural or isolated or that have extra requirements or extra costs.
Ms Frances Kerry:
From the special schools point of view, there are 130 in the country and some of them would have as few as maybe 20 or 25 students. In December 2025 I was approached by a board of management member who had spoken to three different providers and none of them wanted to take it. I fear that will stay the same way until the funding changes for students with special education needs in special schools. However, the current programme does not allow for sharing of kitchens. If a larger school is close to a small special school or rural school, we are missing using those larger kitchens.
Even our current provider in mainstream post-primary would say that schools have to cook on-site, and it has to be from scratch. They do not want to use takeaway boxes. They want to feed on plates. They want it to be social like Deputy Cummins said. It is about using what we have a lot more cleverly. There is an awful lot out there that we can share. Even as a school ourselves, with our budget every year we return money to the Department of Social Protection. We do not use it all. That is because we are monitoring what is used. If we monitor what is used, whatever is left over can be used in another area of the school meals programme. There are ways of saving money. It is a collective and working together. It does not matter what sector one is in. If a kitchen is available, let us share it and use it.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Will Mr. Mulconry mention the public service obligation, PSO?
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
A lot of this comes back to procurement. About half our schools are led by teaching principals. In effect, they are small schools. Often, they are in isolated locations. They are far away from any provider. They are not an attractive option for large scale providers. However, if we were to procure centrally or on a regional basis and tell the providers that we will give them a basket of schools, but among those will be smaller schools that need to be served and that they have a public service obligation to serve those schools, we could address that particular issue. I should acknowledge that an awful lot of work has been done by the Departments of Social Protection and education around procurement and making sure that the providers are responsible for the operation of the scheme rather than the school itself. There has been a lot of good work done. What we need to do is to build on that and make sure that the public service obligation, which makes life easier for small schools, is brought in.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
On procurement, my organisation hosts the schools procurement unit. It is a small unit. Currently, we are awaiting approval to replace two members of staff, one of whom is the director, since the middle of the summer. I am getting anxious about that because we are heading into procuring for next year. That is something that possibly needs addressing.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is going into our admin burden as well by touching on those smaller schools.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
Sharing should be part of the answer. If we think about the ideal setting, food cooked from scratch reduces waste considerably in the experience of our schools. The schools that have somebody coming in and cooking on-site can vary the portion sizes. They can only cook for who is in the school that day. It is a huge improvement. Of course, one of the issues we have is that there are a lot of small schools. However, there is capacity for sharing between schools. I am thinking of an example of one of our post-primary schools where a new special school has just opened not only on the site, but in the building. Those two schools are trying to work together around inclusion and integrating. It is a DDLETB school. It is a very positive story.
What is getting in the way of sharing, even in that situation where there is a post-primary school, is that while there is more capacity for procurement, administration capacity and so on at post-primary - it is not enough, but it is more than primary level - there is the lack of that administration executive officer role. This is a professional person who is skilled and has capacity and time to manage procurement. If we had that one person in that setting, we would be able to share the kitchen and a whole load of other things as well. That administration and management capacity gap at primary level is getting in the way of what could be a fantastic programme with children growing food in the garden, bringing it in and cooking it. It could be a positive programme with just that one piece, which is not that expensive. It is just a bit of administration capacity.
Ryan O'Meara (Tipperary North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Many speakers have pointed that out in comparison with the free books scheme with the query that it worked there, so why is it not working here? I thank them all for their time. I have to go to a meeting with a Minister shortly. I thank Senator Curley for letting me take his time before I had to leave. I appreciate the witnesses attendance here.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Like other Deputies and Senators, today and in the past few days when we highlighted that we were going to be discussing this topic again, we were all inundated with correspondence from councillors and schools. The feedback was all for the Department. It was necessarily for the witnesses' bodies. What they have spoken about has echoed exactly what I have heard over the past couple of days as feedback from the schools.
I am glad that from the witnesses' responses today, they all see the benefit of this programme.
I like the idea of independent research. A lot of research is being undertaken at the moment and many of the bodies represented here have undertaken research. The ETBI stated, "this scheme is not solely the ‘cost per pupil/student’ of the meal delivered" and Ms Kerry mentioned something similar. It is not just the cost of delivering a meal; there are a lot of hidden costs. The reason it is looked at solely as the cost of delivering a meal is probably because it is coming from the Department of Social Protection and not from the Department of education. Will the witnesses comment on whether they would like to see that being transferred over? Would it make a lot of sense to them if it were transferred over?
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
It would need to come with a corresponding increase in funding to the education Department and acknowledgement of the operational, management and administrative supports that are needed. Also, let us not forget the infrastructure. We have a lot of very old schools. We are looking at maximising capacity in school buildings in order to open special classes. Schools are creating offices out of what were previously cupboards. I created two offices out of what had been storage cupboards. It is not a simple task. That is why I am calling for the independent research. The infrastructural requirements to do this well are significant, so we need to be careful about rushing the roll-out of this programme. It is getting embedded at primary. Let us pause, look at it independently and then plan.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
On the question of who should be managing it, whoever is managing it needs to work together and there needs to be consultation. We have all seen a bit of a lack of consultation because the Department of Social Protection does not talk to schools. A couple of my colleagues have already mentioned that the importance of talking to children and young people about this is huge, but the Department of Social Protection has not done that, possibly because of that disconnect. We would love to see much better consultation around this.
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
I would not like to see the scheme moved because the Department of education has enough on its plate at the moment. It really has a lot going on. If you look at the scheme as it is currently operating, the key issue is around procurement and administration. If we can solve that particular problem, then the other things become doable. I will give an example. We talked about the management of the contract. A small school dealing with a big supplier does not have any market power. If it says to a supplier that it is going to get rid of it, that supplier will say, "Fine. We will walk". If there were a centralised procurement system with somebody in charge of large contracts, that person could turn around to a supplier and say, "We want this quality of service and if we do not get it, you will lose a contract and it will hurt". It is about making sure that the right people are doing the right jobs, that the Department of Social Protection has a centralised procurement system so it would be able to manage suppliers better, and then leaving the maximum amount of local autonomy to deal with the rest.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Do the witnesses agree that the most viable solution in the long term is a capital investment programme for schools so that, potentially, kitchens and dining facilities can effectively be put into our school system?
Ms Frances Kerry:
It would be a good idea but we should still look at the shared possibility. I do not see the point in putting a kitchen into every single school if there are schools right beside each other, or if there are schools in localities close together where food can be transported easily and quickly and kept warm. There would have to be a good bit of research done on that first.
Mr. Mark McDonald:
I will echo what Ms Kerry said. If we were to wait on that capital investment, we would be waiting a long time for the hot meals scheme to take hold in schools. We can be innovative in it and we can be creative in how we look at it, which schools are currently being.
While it would definitely be advantageous to say that every school should have the correct facilities, alongside that, we also need to be realistic enough to ask what we can look at for the older buildings. Some of our schools that are 50 or 60 years old do not have the space for it.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There will be time for a second round of questions, so I will not hog it.
Aisling Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for joining us here today. It has been very informative. I want to ask about the overall quality of the food they are seeing in schools. It was touched on here, but the narrative online is mostly pretty negative. I do not agree with it. As a parent, I have had experience of two schools. The food is brought in and reheated in one of them and the other has a kitchen. The experience for my child has been excellent on both occasions. At one point when I was having a chat with the secretary in the first school, I told her that the meals had become a bit plain and that my son had inherited his ferocious appetite from me. I was a bit disappointed and, in my head, thought that it was the provider taking out the expensive bits, but the school secretary told me that it was due to the parents. Some had complained that the meals had peppers, mushrooms or whatever in them and that their children were picky. I was really disappointed to hear that, but I understood that it is to suit the masses. In any event, the narrative out there has got very negative. People are forgetting that these are local businesses that employ local people. They provide an excellent scheme to the schools and all the children, but especially those who really need it. What are the witnesses' overall opinions of the quality of the food?
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
We surveyed our schools last week. While there were some concerns around portion sizes and the suitability of the food, allergies, halal and so on, we did not see food quality coming back as a big issue in that survey at all. I would urge the committee not to pay too much attention to those extremes on social media. It is very disappointing that peppers were taken out. There are stories from all of our schools about children being exposed to foods that they would not have been exposed to before. That is one of the real benefits, not so much around the nutrition, but around the exposure and the social context of eating. It is a really positive thing. There was principal on the radio this morning who said that a child had told him that he thought he did not like peppers. A child may refuse to try them at home but will try them if a friend sitting next to them is trying them. I think we need to be careful about what we are listening to. We are not getting reports of very poor quality. Saying that, it cannot be the responsibility of the primary school principal to go around checking on food quality. That needs to be done by someone else.
Mr. Paul Thornton:
We have found that in a number of our schools where they prepare the food internally, they have come up with different ways of managing the exact situation the Deputy referred to. For example, they may blend the different ingredients into the food or whatever. We have done it at home as well. Another crucial thing that I found out when I spoke to some of our schools is that when the student community was in some way involved in assisting or participating in putting the menu together, there was a much higher uptake on the food and much less waste. That does not mean that we should make the connection that they got rid of all the good things; that is not what happened. In fact, in some of the schools, they went for healthier options than the adults might have gone for. The point is that the children were a party to the whole thing, which meant they felt a sense of ownership and this led to a higher uptake. It goes back to Ms Matthews' point, which I agree with. In order to do that, you need the infrastructure in the building and quite a lot of our schools do not have the infrastructure. That is the reality of the situation. I am sure the committee members know that from their own constituencies.
Aisling Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Absolutely. Ms Kerry spoke about children with special educational needs, SEN.
Children with eating disorders were also mentioned. Unfortunately, that is an issue we are going to see more and more. I see it in my constituency, with kids developing such disorders earlier and earlier. These children need assistance at eating time, especially if they have just come out of treatment and attempts are being made to try to reintegrate them into the school environment. It was stated that there is an administrative cost associated with the free schoolbooks scheme, and that this made it easier and helped with the administrative burden. I am of the view that there should be a person dedicated solely to the matter to which I refer in schools. Children with eating disorders may need to eat every 30 minutes for a particular period and so on. Is that the view of all the witnesses? If not, what are their thoughts?
Ms Frances Kerry:
It would definitely be productive and welcome. I mentioned earlier that if you have a catering team on site, its members become the eyes and ears for the staff and management. They pick up on things that a lot of us would miss. That relationship is really important. They are a great comfort to the students because students will talk to them and tell them that they do not really want something and would prefer something else. They will come back and tell us what is happening. It is another layer of supervision that we never had before, which is lovely.
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
We agree with a focus of responsibility in every school to manage this scheme, or the administrative executive, as my colleague has talked about. One thing that has been useful is that the Department of education set up a small schools project. In essence, it is clustering schools together and asking schools what they need in order to do their job better. In other words, the policy is being created on the ground and brought back to the centre rather than the other way round. Clustering would be helpful in all of this for small schools. You cannot put a kitchen in every school. We have too many small schools, but you could put a facility in one which could be shared by a group of schools if the administrative supports were in place.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
There is room to see if there is a difference in quality between food cooked on site and that provided by a large company that is supplying food to a large number of schools. Does where the food is cooked make a difference? That goes back to the independent research that is needed.
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank all of the witnesses for coming in. It is really obvious that the scheme has delivered meaningful benefits. I have done a lot of work on this over the past few weeks. It is great to see that it goes towards a child's well-being. I would never have thought it would give rise to an increase in attendance. As one of the witnesses said, it even makes kids stay in the afternoons. It is fantastic that we have the scheme. We all know that.
Going back to when I was in primary school in the late seventies and early eighties, the nuns came round and asked who did not have their lunch. If you put your hand up, you got a carton of milk and a hot cross bun. Now, that differentiation is not there any more. All students have the opportunity to get a hot lunch, which is wonderful. Mr. Mulconry and everybody else mentioned the administrative burden. Mr. Mulconry specifically spoke about the need for an administrative grant. What would that look like? Has it already been requested by the Department? Has a cost-analysis been done?
All of the witnesses seem to have done a lot of research with their schools. Have they checked to see how much this is costing? They mentioned things like increases in costs relating to electricity, administration, etc. I will come back to rodents later on. Have they looked at that? Representatives from the Department of Social Protection were before the committee prior to Christmas. I asked them about the administrative burden. I was contacted by one principal who is pulling her hair out about this. She stated that what she had to go through to try to get this was shocking. I said this to Mr. Shevlin and Ms Gaffey at the time and they told me that the application for is only four pages long. I realise now that it is eight pages long. The Department has done webinars and asked principals and teachers to come in and look at videos and undergo training. The officials said that it was not that big of deal and that they really did not understand why people were saying that it was.
However, the witnesses have stated that this is a massive administrative burden and that they need to take that into consideration when they are looking for a grant. Were the officials from the Department incorrect in saying that it is not a burden and that it has run plenty of training programmes? Is it the case that the witnesses correct in what they are saying? If so, how much would they be seeking for schools in comparison with what is provided by means of the capitation grant?
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
We have not costed it, but we have had lively exchanges with both Departments about getting administrative support. To be fair, the Departments have made the process as simple as they possibly can, but - and it is a very big but - if you are not used to procurement, this is an intimidating process. A few years ago, I tried to sign up for something in the EU. Afterwards, I found out that it should have taken me ten minutes. It actually took me three hours. It is the same issue for a principal who is not used to doing this. There is also the responsibility involved. I spoke to someone from a school in Louth recently. There was €6,000 to run the school for three months and €60,000 in the account for school meals, so there is that responsibility. We are also dealing with the fact that there are many very aggressive suppliers. We have seen letters that are not legal, but quasi-legal, asking if we made any mistakes in the procurement process and so on. We have come across cases where schools have basically had explicit or implicit threats made to them about legal action. This is more burdensome than people think, but, also, it is not the day job of the principal or the school.
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I totally agree. That is why I was surprised when the officials from the Department said what they said. I have varifocal lenses in and I am still blind. The witnesses said earlier that 58% of the applications they received contained mistakes and that they had to go back to the schools involved because invoices, etc., had not been attached. Mr. Mulconry is right that principals are there to teach and to do their job. They are not there to go through procurement processes, and are finding it difficult to do so.
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I do not have a school, but I do have a small business. I am sure schools even have to check the temperature of the food when it comes in and write the details down on their sheets, because that is what the-----
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Not even preparation. Even taking in food, you have to check the temperature. There is a big burden in that regard. Mr. Mulconry stated that there is an administrative burden. We will absolutely feed that back to the Department.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
It is not just about procurement. The procurement is intense, but the ongoing operation and administration of the scheme are also issues. One school principal talked to me about having to record the name of each pupil who availed of it on each day. It is actually not possible in a lunch hour to deliver school meals to hundreds of students and record who is actually eating that food. That is unreasonable accountability. There is also the governance aspect because there is a lot of money involved. A board of management needs to have systems in place to assure itself that the governance associated with the funding is properly accounted for. It is much bigger than just procurement.
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for coming in and adding to our understanding of this scheme and how it is functioning. I was working in a school when the hot school meals programme was introduced. Since the previous meeting at which we discussed this, many people have contacted me. There has been an awful lot of correspondence, including from a number of my friends who are school principals. I will stick to the theme we are discussing, namely the administrative burden, because that is huge for them. They would kill me if I did not bring it up. A couple of additional tasks that have been mentioned are annual projections, monthly returns, financial reporting and compliance checks. It is not just the procurement, but those to whom I spoke had a problem with that too. It is ongoing and reflects the feedback I got from my friends. Do the witnesses want to talk more about what kind of engagement they have had with the Department? They have obviously approached it in respect of this matter. I would love to hear what the Department came back with.
Mr. Paul Thornton:
On the procurement, as Mr. Mulconry said, the SPU definitely has attempted with videos, etc., to ease the process for principals. However, the reality is that principals are not procurement experts. For any of us, if we have to go to something which is technical and detailed two or three times a year and stare at that screen - I do not know whether this has happened to the Deputy - it is like starting the whole process all over again. If they were procurement experts, we would say that is their tough luck but they are not. They are meant to be running schools and caring about the welfare of children and their educational development. The truth is this is a stress to us.
Then there is the oversight, as already has been mentioned. It would be one thing if you finished the procurement, walked away from it and did not have to worry about it until it happened again but that is only one part of it. Quite often, there will be a parental aspect to it. There are nutritional and quality aspects to it. There is dealing with the waste, that has become a big issue in schools, and so forth. The overall view of the principals we went to is they want the hot meal scheme to continue. They never suggested otherwise. However, they are asking that we be aware of the added burden this has brought upon their working lives.
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have the same question for Dr. Nowlan.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
On the question of whether we have gone to the Department, that has been one of the big gaps here. When the school book scheme was coming in, as a matter of course, there is some consultation with management bodies. We were able to point out the problem of the administrative costs, and a grant was put in. However, again, it is the problem of it coming from the Department of Social Protection and there not being any consultation. At primary level, we cannot emphasise enough the gap in administration capacity for primary schools in particular. In our survey of schools, most schools stated that after the procurement, which takes a number of days over a number of weeks at the beginning, it is still taking maybe five hours a week. Somebody has to do that work. In a primary school, that might be a teaching principal. In comparison, the grant that was given in respect of the book scheme takes three to seven days per year. This is for a one-off scheme that only runs once a year at the beginning and then there is nothing. There is absolutely nothing for this. The answer at primary level is in that administration, executive officer role that is being talked about, that has come from the small schools project. The problem at the moment is it is being piloted and it is a three-year pilot. As it has just started, we are supposed to wait for three years until that has been piloted and everyone knows it is needed.
The Department of Social Protection is saying procurement can be done. Yes, it can be done but not by a busy school principal who should be focusing on teaching and learning. We need these administrative and executive roles who can get skilled in procurement and can do it easily and efficiently and then we are getting good value for money.
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree and I have lived through it. Dr. Nowlan mentioned luck. A friend of mine, who is a principal, said she was very lucky that she had two secretaries and one of her secretaries did it, and continues to, but again, that is just luck. I have another minute and a half.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I need to be very clear, when I say procurement, I mean procurement and contract management. It is all the rest of it. In terms of our engagement with the Department, this scheme was originally just landed on the primary sector and we really knew nothing about it. There has been a lot of work and engagement with both primary and the Department of Social Protection over the past six months to try to retrofit and deal with the issues that were arising. Whatever problems there are now, there were a lot more problems there before.
In terms of the procurement at the moment, 1,000 schools went out between September and December. That means over the next few years, there is going to be 2,000 more. That is an immediate issue. We can provide training with all of the webinars, etc., but it is still an intimidating process and the point I make is it is not a core function of a principal. Their job is to lead teaching and learning and the more administration we can take from them and give to other people to allow them to do the job only they can do, the better.
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree. I have 30 seconds. I will just wait until I come back.
Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as a bheith linn inniu. I empathise with a lot of what they have said. I was a secondary school teacher for ten or 11 years, and taught in a DEIS school in Dublin for two years where I saw the cold school meals programme in action from 2016 to 2018. Even ten years ago, I saw the breakfast club bring kids to school and the lunch meals keep kids in school.
I have seen the effect of it at first hand and can relate to an awful lot of what the witnesses said.
I have a question for Mr. Thornton. Regarding the research he is recommending and attendance, is much of the research that would be needed not very quickly available now on software packages such as VSware and Compass within schools where they keep attendance? Even ten years ago, I was able to get very detailed analysis of attendance with layers of analysis of it. Would this not be freely available at this stage?
Mr. Paul Thornton:
Research would need to broader than attendance. VSware and other such packages, and there are numerous other packages, detail who is in the building but they do not necessarily make the connection as to what or why they are staying in the building, that is, the different reasons. Anecdotally, it is suggested, and we believe it is probably true but we cannot say it definitively, that the student is there in the morning; comes into school because of the breakfast club, as the Senator noted; and stays at lunch time because he or she gets his or her one staple meal of the day but would otherwise leave the building if there was no hot meal provision.
Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If we look at a school where a number of students are the first child in the family to attend during the roll-out of the cold school meals programme at secondary level or the hot school meals programme at primary level and have older siblings who may have had poor attendance, would we not be quickly able to say "that guy's older brother was here on average 40% of the year. He came 70% of the year" so we have a very tangible reference point of increased attendance?
Mr. Paul Thornton:
That degree of analysis could be part of the research but I also think that there would be other aspects than attendance to the research such as nutritional benefit, engagement benefit and social benefits. One could look at the cold hard statistics and they would give one an indicator but the research needs to be wider.
Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Because there is more soft information.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
We have to be careful about attendance claims because we all know that since Covid, attendance in schools has become a bigger problem than it was pre-Covid and we had school meals then. The cause and effect piece is wider and bigger. There are a lot more factors involved. In the independent research, we are also talking about the administrative burden, the operational burden and the infrastructural requirements so it is a much broader piece. It is such a resource-intensive support to students and families that it really needs to be well supported by what the capital requirement is and what the evidence to support its efficacy is.
Shane Curley (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree. In one of the schools I was in, I saw the amount of work that went into rolling out cold school meals so imagine what happens with hot school meals. I understand what Ms Matthews is saying. One of the main reasons I asked the question is because with research comes cost. Is the starting place, as Mr. Mulconry would say, to perhaps bring in an assistant principal, AP, II post into every school to allow for the administrative burden to be alleviated somewhat by some sort of middle management position? That is the only reason I bring it up.
My other question concerns food quality. We are getting various levels of feedback. I was at the Stripe Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition last week. One of the projects was on food waste. One of the biggest indicators of food waste was the quality of the food coming to the school. What schools are providing and its quality are probably inconsistent across the country. My question concerns allergies. What kind of feedback are the witnesses getting regarding the level of facilitation of allergies when providers are engaging with schools? I am getting fairly stark stories in some cases of things like gluten intolerance or coeliac disease not being catered for, good, bad or indifferent, by some providers. It is not across the board. What is the witnesses' take on that?
Ms Frances Kerry:
Regarding allergies, it really depends on the provider and the relationship one has with the provider. In some schools, providers provide bulk meals. They come in and it might be a choice of two or it might not be. It could be just the one. It could be a cold meal or hot meal; whatever they decide to have. There is a huge amount of work to be done regarding allergies such as those relating to coeliac disease or egg or peanut allergies.
It is only if you can work really well with the provider that all of those can be met. It can even come down to cultural preferences for food and things like that. There are some providers that will go above and beyond and there are others that do not want to know about it. That is why it is really important that the school is managing the money very carefully with the provider. That results in more administration work for school management.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
I was going to say more or less the same thing. As well as the reality of whether allergies are being catered for, what is needed is confidence. That certainly is not there at the moment. It is a new enough market. There was a big expansion in a short time at primary level. It is going to continue growing so there is a little bit of a scramble as the providers get bigger and bigger. There certainly is not confidence at the moment. While we might not necessarily have many examples to point to, we need to build confidence that when a provider tells you something is halal, it is halal and that when a provider tells you it is gluten-free, it really is. That is what is needed.
To go back to the Senator's question about the research, educational research is complex. There is never one factor affecting attendance. It is always a combination. We really could benefit from research around that nutritional question because the programme is being damaged by some of the things that are being said about quality on social media. We do not know if they are true. That is where we really need research.
Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank all of the witnesses. Their submissions and contributions are very valuable. It is encouraging to hear the positives in relation to the scheme. As has been indicated, research is important to move beyond anecdote. This is not my main question but some of this feels like there was a big decision by the Government and we are now improving by increment. Could some of these things have been foreseen? Do the witnesses feel they were adequately consulted? They and the people they represent are living this stuff. Could some of this have been foreseen? I would have thought the resource and administration demands could immediately have been foreseen and planned for. It is now caught between the Departments of Social Protection and education. Nobody wants to pay or to carry the can in that regard. Do the witnesses have any reflections in relation to that?
On my main question, Dr. Nowlan and Mr. Mulconry made a point regarding centralised procurement. What do they mean by that? I would have thought an attractive element of this would be the opportunity for local companies to grow out of it. I might come in again on the connection of the kids not only to the food, but to the producers of the food. Would some of that be lost in a centralised procurement model? Could a regional or cluster approach resolve that? Perhaps we could start with Dr. Nowlan.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
On the Deputy's first question and whether we would start from here, I urge the committee to look at the 2022 evaluation of the school meals programme. There are a number of recommendations there that have not yet been implemented. That work has been done and those recommendations can be implemented fairly quickly. One of them relates to support with centralised procurement. Centralised procurement does not need to mean one supplier for the whole country; far from it. We have already talked about the local benefits. Where food can be cooked on premises, you reduce waste and develop those relationships between your catering staff and the children. There are huge benefits there. Some of the providers operate that model. There are providers that operate on a large scale but part of their model is to recruit local staff to source food locally. One our principal's responses painted a picture of lorries of aeroplane food being driven back and forward across the country. We need to reduce that. Whether it is local or clusters of schools, if we had that administration executive officer role - I am sorry to be going on about it - that person could serve a number of schools in an area, whether small or otherwise. Centralised procurement does not need to mean there is no local autonomy. There are models that can work in that way. What matters is that the food is cooked on site and secured and bought locally.
That can happen with centralised procurement as long as there is management administration capacity.
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
I agree with everything that my colleague has said. The only point I would make is that the complexity in all of this is food safety. That is really what has driven a lot of the way the scheme operates. Ireland, and properly so, has very strict regulations on food. It does limit what you can do.
I agree that centralised procurement does not mean that you cannot have local arrangements but that you have an overall package that schools can draw from. So it is not beyond the wit of man to design something that allows a degree of local autonomy but places more of the burden at the centre rather than at the school.
Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does anyone else want to comment on that or even on earlier consultation and engagement with yourselves in terms of scheme design?
Mr. Paul Crone:
On schoolbooks, the Department of education created a dynamic purchasing scheme to make procurement easier. However, if I am a school principal and I am spending between five and ten hours per week on this, how much of my job is that? Our longitudinal research, which was done by Deakin University, shows that over 80% of school principals work, on average, between 50 and 60 hours per week. If those hours were reduced by ten hours, the job might become more sustainable. The work should not be on their table.
Dr. Nowlan spoke about the action research project which is ongoing. That research needs to be expedited because this work, while vital for schools, is not part of the job of the school principal. School principals provide support and give direction but this work is not their day-to-day bread and butter.
Mr. Mark McDonald:
On the earlier point made about consultation with stakeholders, I think everything is always better when stakeholders are consulted. For example, as a director of schools, if I decide to do something without talking to the senior leaders in the 31 schools in the DDLETB, the project is not going to work. There will be gaps because I do not see everything. Therefore, I urge consultation with stakeholders who are not simply principals and deputy principals but also parents and young people.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
Consulting all the stakeholders and partners is essential if the hot school meals programme is to be expanded and rolled out in post-primary schools. Adequate time must be provided for planning so that the programme does not suddenly arrive on our desks.
I emphasise the responsibility that a principal and a board of management bears for managing such large funds because in many schools this would be a significant proportion of their total funding. It has been suggested that a post of responsibility should be created. That might be problematic given the level of responsibility we are talking about here. A school principal cannot abdicate his or her responsibility for overall management. Leadership and management are two sides of the same coin. It is very difficult to separate them in any aspect of school life. Having correct and adequate supports for administrative staff is an essential part of that, but it does not remove the overall burden of responsibility from a board of management and a school principal.
Peter Roche (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The witnesses are most welcome. I must be brutally honest that when I learned we were going to have seven witnesses I thought, oh, mother of God, this is going to be quite a meal for us.
Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We are looking forward to lunch.
Peter Roche (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I say that because I thought we might not have enough time for proper engagement because that is very often an issue that we are presented with at committee level. Now that we have heard from all of the witnesses, I think this meeting has been an excellent exercise.
I have listened attentively to all of the witnesses and common themes have emerged. All of the contributions referenced the administrative burden, supervision demands, financial resources in the school, procurement issues, dining space, building suitability, dining duration, food waste, dietary requirements and, most importantly, children presenting with autism and sensory issues and how that can be made very complex.
The one thing that struck me was that this concept was born out of wanting to deal with a social issue, so to speak, whereby children were presenting in schools hungry, and to a degree it has done exactly that. Of course, there was never going to be a perfect fit for all schools. There will always be teething issues, and that is probably what we are experiencing here today. I was recently in a school that was in its first week of this new hot school meals plan. When I asked the principal how it was going, he put his eyes to heaven as if to say "Jesus". It was a legitimate nightmare for him, but they were expecting it to bed down. I can understand, more so now given the contributions, how that is a real burden in the context of time and, of course, resources. As all the witnesses have said, teachers are there to teach rather than to be caterers or dining staff.
I think there will be challenges going forward. All the witnesses are pretty much saying the same thing in the context of how this could be made better. The question I have, and it is the one that sticks in my mind, is as follows. If I were the Minister for Social Protection - I am sure the witnesses' views are representative of every school right around the country - and if I were to ask the witnesses what the single biggest issue they need resolved is, I suspect at this stage it would probably come down to funding or staff. Maybe I am wrong, but if I were to give the witnesses the opportunity to answer that question, and if the Minister were required to put funding towards the solution or the resolution of this scheme, what would it be? Any one of the witnesses can take that.
Mr. Paul Thornton:
I agree with Ms Matthews, but one would be inclined to think the administrative requirement would have to be addressed first. I am not saying it is the only requirement, but it would have to be addressed first because that would allow somebody to give a lot of their attention, if not all their attention, to improving within the school the situation they had - for example, if the quality was not correct or if the issue of allergies was not being addressed. I refer to a person whose particular folder or file, whose job, it is to deal with this. One would imagine that if you were given only one thing you could have, that is probably where you would start - administrative support.
Peter Roche (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I think Dr. Nowlan wanted to come in.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
Yes. It was just to point out that we are school management, so what we might want might be different from what others might want. I am minded that some of our members have spoken very positively, for example, about the benefits of breakfast clubs. If you were to ask children and families experiencing poverty what they might want, it might be that. Of course, my members, who are school boards of management, would ask, "How can we possibly do that?" Again, it will come back to the administrative capacity. If we have an administration executive that is supporting our school and helping us not just with school meals but with any other schemes, with sharing facilities, with managing all the increased staff we have now because we have more and more children with additional needs in our schools, which is a good thing, I think the value for money you will get for increasing that administration and management capacity in primary schools will be absolutely enormous, not just for school meals but for all kinds of other initiatives.
Peter Roche (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Apologies, I have only about 40 seconds. One of the things that struck me, and this is probably a positive as opposed to a negative, was that there was lesser consideration given to what I would think was a priority, namely, the nutritional value of the food. That did not seem to surface that much. Maybe that issue has been resolved. Maybe it was an issue in the past, but it probably is not now. Are the witnesses satisfied that that nutritional element is being managed or dealt with?
Peter Roche (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is the hearsay good or bad?
Emer Currie (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank all the witnesses for being here and I look forward to their coming back to cover different topics.
I am a big fan of the hot school meals programme because of the social benefits, as well as the benefit to my household. I know the feedback from parents has, in general, been very positive. I see this as an exercise in improving what we have and discussing the gains we have made. The programme is a significant investment by a school. The witnesses also believe in the social benefits, but I do not underestimate the responsibility and time that has gone into it. Schools have become administrators of a new social welfare scheme and we now have to examine how we can do that more effectively and efficiently.
Are some providers taking on more of the operation side of the service than others? Is there a variance across schools regarding how the programme is managed with providers? Do some providers come into schools and do more of this type of thing? My children's school is familiar with some of the staff who come in and give children lunches. Can providers take on more responsibility?
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
In our survey I hoped we might see a pattern. We asked schools who their providers were and tried to compare which were more comfortable and better supported with the scheme, but we found there were no patterns. Half of our schools replied very quickly, but it is not a huge sample. It is very early days for primary schools. Even if a provider might be good at national level, it might use local delivery staff. We have not yet seen patterns, but it is important to examine that. In the 2022 review, there was a recommendation that there be at least some kind of a dynamic framework put in place so that some quality assessment could be done at a national level and schools could choose from a group of providers that have already been quality vetted. That would be very helpful.
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
The variance is in how suppliers deliver the food. Some do so from facilities in schools, others deliver food hot and some deliver cold food. That is set out in the contract and procurement process. We are always anxious to make sure that the school has no role in food preparation because if it does, and something goes wrong, it is the responsibility of the school. To be fair to the Departments of Social Protection and Education and Youth, they have, in the rules they have set out, striven to make sure to do everything to ensure that it is the supplier who has responsibility for food preparation, etc.
The other issue is food quality and nutrition. The market is highly concentrated. A small number of companies are responsible for about 90% of the market. It would be useful to have some form of engagement with them at a central level. The committee could bring them before it perhaps once a quarter and if there are issues arising in schools or with certain suppliers, it could raise those issues. That would mean issues are being raised at a central rather than a school level. As I said earlier, schools do not have much market power.
Mr. Paul Crone:
The scheme could not and would not be able to operate without relying on the suppliers. They are providing staff that schools do not have. Schools become hugely reliant on suppliers. That is closely linked to the capacity of schools to deal with all of the demands placed on them in addition to their educational responsibilities. This is one of them. It is a very astute observation. Without suppliers, and the relationship the school has and the trust it has built up with them, the scheme would not be able to operate.
Emer Currie (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have noticed that the programme varies from school to school in terms of how hands-on suppliers are. In the past, there were deliveries and a caretaker would have collected the food, which would be then delivered to classrooms and distributed by a teacher. There seem to be other models.
The witnesses are correct. Procurement is obviously a burden. The ongoing burden of managing 300 to 400 pupils and all of their tastes and needs must be overwhelming when schools are dealing with so many other things. Can providers be more involved? Dr. Nowlan made a suggestion in respect of administrative staff. In terms of how we manage our national childcare scheme and subsidies, it is an assistant to parents but providers need to be acknowledged in terms of how they are administering such schemes one-to-one. Schools also need assistance. I am looking for patterns. One thing I have taken from this exchange is that there are not enough patterns for us to see what is and is not working. I wanted to ask about infrastructure, and I never even got there.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will come back to that. All of the members have had an opportunity to ask questions. We will have time for another round. We will allow people three minutes for the last round.
Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I am a parent and see the benefits of the school meals scheme at national level, but I also see the faults, wastage and the food that is not eaten. We have an EU target that by 2030 all children will be fed. I understand 300,000 children currently in the post-primary system are not being fed. There are a number of anomalies with the pricing structure. A hot meal for a five-year-old is €3.20, yet for a 17-year-old it is €2.50. I looked at the figures. On average, a meal of 400g to 450g should be given to a teenager and a 250g one to a child. Someone should explain that to me because I cannot make sense of it.
Schools need to concentrate on education and not try to figure out and organise kitchens, ovens and whatever else is needed to put the scheme in place. Ultimately, the goal is to feed every child in the primary and post-primary school system. We need to cut out wastage because there is multimillion euro wastage in the scheme. We have all seen that. Parents at home see food that has not been eaten. Sometimes three or four boxes of somebody else's food are sent home.
We need to change the system while keeping some things in place. AI technology can be used to predict the usage of the scheme, and is currently being used in schools. Why is that not being examined? There is a system that can cut out wastage. The reality is that if a student does not eat or take something it should not then be paid for by the State. Technology is available to work out the need in every single school in the country. That can be used to determine what is supplied to a school and would mean there would be no food wastage or money spent by the State on food that is being thrown out or not being used.
Ms Frances Kerry:
We recently won a grant of €2,500 from the education for sustainable development fund. We have chosen to use it for an app for all students and parents, which they can use to grade and comment on the food. The provider also has access to it. There is a direct link so that when students feed into the app it is not just the school which receives that information but also the provider. That opens up conversations between providers, parents, students, management and staff. It is an on-the-spot way of finding out where we are today.
Ms Deirdre Matthews:
I agree that we have to look at how we can manage this better. It is like a light bulb has gone on for me.
The school management is the conduit for funds from the Department of Social Protection to be converted into food for children. Is there a rule for the Department to engage directly with providers? The Deputy asked whether providers could do more to alleviate the burden on schools. That is my response to that.
Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Department of Social Protection needs to work with the providers that supply schools. The schools should not have to deal with it. Ms Matthews referred to apps, but there is technology available that can work out what the need is. It can be supplied in and there would be no wastage. We need to use the technology that is there.
Jen Cummins (Dublin South Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the witnesses for a really interesting discussion and for their engagement. What I am hearing loud and clear is that there needs to be a full audit of needs for individual schools to see what exactly is needed because this is not a one-size-fits-all programme. It would be brilliant if it was a one-size-fits-all programme, but every school has different structures, management and lots of different things. There will be clusters of schools that will have similar things. Schools built in the 2000s will have big spaces. We could nearly take them based on when they were built. That is the infrastructure part, but there is also the management part. In order for the audit to take place and to see what happens, it has to be part of the independent research that would examine the issues the witnesses have brought up such as the administrative burden on school leaders.
It is also about the additional resources required, such as the book scheme that was referred to, and it needs to be on a par with that. This is important. No one here is saying that we should get rid of this scheme. In order to keep this scheme and make it the best it can be, it needs to have all those infrastructural resources put in place.
We have heard various opinions regarding the extent of it, but high nutritional standards need to be consistent throughout the country. At the moment, they are not. Even within my constituency they are not consistent. The scheme needs to be monitored and evaluated on an ongoing basis. We then have to see how it can be rolled out to every school. We have heard that it has been rolled out at primary level, but not at post-primary level.
One issue that has not necessarily been at the fore here is that I have been contacted by a lot of parents who have withdrawn their children from the scheme. That is because it is not at the standard that we would like it to be. It would be fantastic if this time next year, we are looking at a situation where parents are re-engaging with the programme. Many issues have been mentioned in terms of attendance, learning and the ability to not fall of asleep at school because children are drained of energy. Eating good food addresses them. There is also the social element.
It has been really informative to hear what the witnesses have said. We will be talking about this subject over the next number of weeks, so it is important the witnesses were here today because they are the people who are engaging with schools. I thank them all very much. I really appreciate it.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have found it very informative. I am going to go back to the administrative burden on the staff in schools and how we can resolve that. I do not know if people recall that on 1 September last year, a number of primarily rural schools and smaller schools were notified by providers that they would not have school dinners.
We talk about the stress and the administrative burden, but then these school authorities thought they had done everything right and then all of a sudden they were told they did not have the service and school was back. Councillor Eileen Mannion from Clifden spoke to me recently about nine schools in her area. While the Department have said it is trying to assist schools, there are still nine schools in the Clifden area that signed up to the programme that do not have school dinners. I spoke to Councillor Tommy Griffin from Castlemaine, County Kerry. In his local municipal district, there are two schools in the very same situation. Quite often, they see the providers drive past their schools with school dinners in the back of their vans on the way to bigger schools, yet they are dealing with this. There is certain administrative work that we and the Departments of Social Protection and Education and Youth can help with, but then there is another element that is the unforeseen burden and we need to support them with this.
I also want to highlight a school in my own constituency, Ballinlough National School, where its principal, Tara Jordan, spent the whole summer working as a quantity surveyor and as a project manager. As someone mentioned earlier, the school had to convert one of its old storerooms into a dining area for eating dinners. She got the same phone call on 1 September, telling her that the supplier would not be able to provide the dinners and the school would have to source them. As Ms Jordan believes in the project and wanted to provide dinners for her students, she engaged actively.. She went above and beyond and got a service to provide meals for her students. In the whole context of this conversation, I acknowledge that a lot of principals out there overlooked the administrative and staffing burdens and got on with it to make sure their students had that support. I acknowledge them for that.
The evaluation of the schools meals programme in 2022 was referred to earlier and it was asked if we could see whether the recommendations were implemented. I propose the committee writes to the Department of Social Protection and gets confirmation on what recommendations were implemented and where the other recommendations are. We will have that response back for this committee.
Aisling Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have so many questions. Which one should I ask the witnesses? Since the Department has taken on the nutritionists for the programme, the guidelines have changed to a certain extent and there is less red meat and less processed food. Are all providers doing that? Who is inspecting it? Have the witnesses seen inspections happening? What is being inspected when inspectors go into schools?
Mr. Paul Thornton:
To my knowledge, the majority of inspections deal with the governance and the financial aspects of the programme. I have not been subject to one myself but my understanding from the different schools is that they are the two main concerns. A lot of the inspections are what are known as desk inspections. The majority of inspections would not necessarily be dealing with the quality or nutritional aspects. We understand why that is. As Ms Matthews and Mr. Crone pointed out earlier, there are considerable moneys involved in this. In direct answer to the Deputy's question, I do not think nutrition is the primary concern during inspections.
Mr. Mark McDonald:
When we are looking at this, providers by and large are trying to be as nutritious as possible but, as we know as independent people, it is often cheaper to buy non-nutritious food than nutritious food. While they are doing it, the funding involved is at such a level that it is becoming increasingly harder to provide those nutritious meals. As mentioned earlier, the relationship between the school leaders and the suppliers is crucial. When they are working well together, there are a lot more possibilities than when they are not. Within that, the funding levels are making it increasingly difficult to make that nutritional element happen.
Ms Frances Kerry:
From a special schools' point a view, various providers tell us that it is 50% more expensive for them to provide for students in special schools due to the various dietary requirements, the textures and all of that. Because of that, special schools are quite often left to look after themselves to find their own funding and their own way of getting a local provider to come in. Another provider we spoke to recently asked if someone in every school could be trained up in health and safety to deal with food, so that in a small school where there might be 25 covers, that person could receive the food, open it, make sure it is the right consistency and so on. The person would also be trained by the provider. Again, it is back to co-operation between providers and schools.
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Mr. Mulconry said something that I hope can be brought up with the Department. He said something about aggressive suppliers. That is a big statement. No school should have to deal with any supplier that acts aggressively. I encourage him to bring that up with the Department.
I asked a question, which Mr. Mulconry responded to, about whether anyone involved in the management of the programme done a cost-benefit analysis.
We are spending €300 million a year on hot school meals. Have we looked at how much it will cost for an administration grant or a payment to schools for administration? Has any of the management groups done that? Everyone is looking for support with administration but has anyone actually done that research? It is a yes-no question. The witnesses are indicating "No".
Mr. Paul Crone:
In relation to research, there was an action research project done on the administrative executive at post-primary level only and we had costed it at around €21 million. That is at post-primary level only and does not involve clustering. That research was done as part of a pre-budget submission a number of years ago around the administrative executive.
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Okay, that is good to know. On the issue of waste, I am hearing that parents are still allowing their children to get the lunch, even though they might not be mad about the lunch but they are also sending in a school lunch, which is leading to a good bit of waste. When something is free, people think that maybe little Johnny might have the lunch but he might have his own one as well. That might be contributing to food waste. Am I right in saying that suppliers do not generally take the food waste away on the day but leave it for a week or two and then it is all collected at once? It is my understanding that they cannot take the waste in the same van that is used to transport the food. Some schools send the meals home so that parents can see what the child has eaten and what is left over. Does anyone have a solution to the waste problem? What is the best practice in that regard?
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Yes, I can understand that.
Ms Frances Kerry:
The student voice is also important. Students have to be included and brought along the whole time. When they are making the decisions or helping with making the decisions on things like school policies on healthy eating, which they want to be involved in, they make a huge difference because they are more vested. They want to be part of it. In terms of teaching and learning, we have universal design for learning which holds that students are taught to the best of their ability and that we meet them there. Maybe we should have a universal design for living when it comes to the food in schools, that we are meeting the students where they need to be and giving them what they need.
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We need to hear their voice on it.
Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is the last thing we want, for children to be separated out.
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand where Ms Kerry is coming from because I have a son in the same situation and he cannot avail of the hot food as a result. I have three quick questions which will change the conversation somewhat. The first one is about the hidden costs. Are any schools withdrawing from the scheme because they cannot cover the hidden costs? Some schools are relying on parental contributions to cover general operational costs. In that context, I wonder if any schools have not availed of the scheme. My second question relates to an issue that has not been brought up previously or at least that I have not come across in conversation. I refer to the point made by the ACCS about the communal aspect of the school meals programme. Do any of the witnesses wish to speak on that? It is something that I try to focus on at home, that at least two or three times a week we all sit down and have the same meal at the same time. Does anyone want to speak on the communal aspect in the context of school? My third question is about portion sizes. I raised this previously based on my own experience. I taught naíonáin bheaga and rang a sé and they were getting the same size meals. I invite the witnesses to comment on that.
Mr. Paul Thornton:
The communal and social aspect is so important. It is happening in a number of our schools. One of them in particular springs to mind because I spoke to the principal yesterday about a different matter. The communal aspect does not happen in students' lives other than this. They have a special Christmas meal because they will have no other Christmas meal. They sit and they have to have a knife, fork and plate. They all have their places and they must sit for lunch because that is more than likely the only time they will do that in their daily or weekly lives. The social value in that is incalculable. We cannot put a number on it.
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree. I had junior infants and-----
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----we used to do a birthday breakfast for the children. It would be very simple. We would just throw something together but we used to do that regularly.
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I agree.
Ms Frances Kerry:
There is no packaging, the dishes are washed and ready for the next day and the students have had the communal experience, a social gathering. It also makes eating together normal and that feeds into the whole area of eating disorders as well, whereby it breaks down barriers a little bit and can help some students. Students can look at others and see that they are not able, so there is a better understanding between students as well.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
I urge the committee to be ambitious in its thinking. This programme has fantastic potential across food education, learning about growing food, learning about eating disorders and so on, as well as that social aspect. It does not have to be any more expensive either, with cooking on site, reducing waste and so on. There are ways to develop this over time into a really positive programme across all of those areas.
Shónagh Ní Raghallaigh (Kildare South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Dr. Nowlan mentioned that we do not see any waste when the food is being prepared on site. Do the companies or providers get paid for the number of children in school on a particular day or just for who they cook for?
Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Just to continue on the issue of waste, has it been quantified? Is there any sense or indication of the amount of waste being generated? Do the witnesses think it would be important to quantify it and to design a scheme that has a specific objective to minimise waste?
Mr. Paul Thornton:
While it would be important to quantify it, it would be very difficult to do so because schools might be afraid that if they declare too much waste, they will lose grant funding. I am not saying that would be the truth but that could get out into the ether. It would be important to know but we have no figures on the waste.
Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
All of the witnesses have mentioned potential ways to reduce waste, including listening to the student voice, using leftovers for homework clubs and so on. On the wider point that Dr. Nowlan has made, which is referenced in the 2022 report, about food education and our relationship with food, would the witnesses care to expand on that further? I have heard it articulated that there is potentially a far wider benefit from what is a major initiative on the part of the Government.
Dr. Emer Nowlan:
Yes, and the ACCS and others have touched on it too. Consultation is a major element. If we are talking to students about the food and if they are choosing the food, all of that improves the uptake and all aspects of the scheme. Our vision would be one where we are going right back to actually growing the food and teaching children about where their food comes from. There is a huge problem in the world today in that children do not know where their food comes from. We need to be addressing that in schools. It is not rocket science but involves taking them out to the garden, growing a few carrots and so on. Then, if we are cooking food on site, those carrots can be used in the lunches. Anyone who has children knows that if children are involved in preparing the food they are much more likely to eat it. It is right the way through from growing, to understanding, to eating together, and even if we could get to the stage of including cleaning up together and reducing the waste, together. I would also say that there should be an obligation on providers to minimise waste.
Mr. Seamus Mulconry:
It is the responsibility of the providers to deal with waste. Schools should not be sending the food home because there is a food safety aspect to that. A lot of the providers use an app so that parents can order the food, which is a very good idea but there needs to be sufficient variation. One of the aspects of nutrition that people often forget is that we need to eat a varied diet. The more change in the food, the more likely children are to eat it and not to waste it.
Gareth Scahill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Thank you very much. We have reached the end. I promised we would do so by 3 p.m. so we are a couple of seconds early. On behalf of the committee, I thank all of our witnesses - Mr. Thornton, Ms Matthews, Mr. Crone, Mr. Mulconry, Dr. Nowlan, Mr. McDonald and Ms Kerry - for being here today.
The discussion has been very informative and we have all gained a lot from it. It will feed into the report we will be producing at the end. It has been very beneficial and insightful. I thank all our guests for giving up their time today to attend. I thank all the members.