The Irish Times view on free school meals: some improvement necessary

When Heather Humphreys described the provision of universal hot meals for primary school children as one of the lasting legacies of the last government, the then minister for social protection was not exaggerating. The scheme, which grew from a modest 2019 pilot to an entitlement for every primary pupil in the country, moved Ireland from a European laggard in school food to a place alongside Nordic countries, where a free lunch is a long-established part of the school day.

The scheme is of most value for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are less likely to get a nutritious meal at home. In its pilot phase, the initiative emphasised Deis schools, and its early expansion focused on disadvantaged areas and special schools. But the principle of universal provision is an important one, not least because it removes any stigma from the child who most needs the food.

With a budget allocation of €286 million in 2026, the programme is now by far the State’s largest food contract, serving about 550,000 children in some 3,200 primary schools. So it is no surprise that questions arise about its effectiveness and value for money.

Appearing before the Public Accounts Committee last week, Department of Social Protection officials responded to a Comptroller and Auditor General report that found enrolment figures were not routinely checked, surpluses approaching €34 million had built up in schools and five suppliers account for more than two-thirds of provision. The committee also heard one supplier paid three school staff €1,000 each, while others funded jerseys and raffle prizes.

In September, Humphreys’s successor as Minister for Social Protection, Dara Calleary, received two reviews of the scheme’s operation, one from a dietitian and the other from a polling company. The first found that children favoured processed options and that up to a fifth of meals went uneaten. The second found that most pupils liked their lunch but most parents wanted a cold alternative. The Minister has promised standardised menus, portions suited to age, better provision for special diets and a cold option.

There is clearly room for improvement. Advocacy groups have argued it is possible to improve the quality and nutritional value of the meals by sourcing locally and supporting community kitchens and on-site cooking. Others point to the environmental cost of single-use containers and packaging and demand change.

These are valid criticisms, and continuous improvement should be central to the scheme. But what should not be lost sight of is the fact that the most important beneficiaries, and the ones whose needs should be foremost in every decision about its future, are children who may otherwise not eat a proper meal at all.