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.