Why the Patronage Model is Harming the School Meals Programme
An article in The Irish Times (9th January) has drawn attention to several serious issues with the Government’s school meals scheme. Ruth Hegarty, a food policy consultant and lecturer at University College Cork, has criticised the reliance on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the lack of oversight in the programme. However, for me, these problems reflect deeper systemic flaws. It’s yet another example of how the patronage model itself causes these issues.
Under the patronage system, every school operates as its own “fiefdom,” with no centralised body to manage services like school lunches. While government funding for school meals exists, there is no local authority to oversee or streamline the rollout of these programmes. Schools are not under the direct control of local councils or even the Department of Education. Instead, decisions about school lunches are left to individual Boards of Management. These boards, made up of eight volunteers, often lack expertise in nutrition, procurement, or logistics. Therefore, responsibility is almost always delegated to school principals, who are already stretched thin managing other aspects of their schools.
This setup not only creates inconsistencies but also forces schools to tender contracts separately, often with different suppliers across the country. The result is inefficiency, lost opportunities for collaboration, and no ability to leverage bulk purchasing for better value.
The tendering process means that schools are unable to work together to source food from local suppliers or develop sustainable partnerships. Each school is effectively isolated, and the lack of coordination prevents regions from fostering local enterprise. Instead of building a system that supports local farmers or prioritises fresh, minimally processed food, the current model favours cost-cutting and convenience. For the companies that supply school lunches, they rely on the small number of giant catering companies who essentially make pre-prepared foods for restaurants, which are basically heated up. Because these meals are generally made off-site and need to last for a number of days before expiring, they have to be pumped with preservatives. That’s nobody’s fault, that’s how large-scale catering works! Schools are left at the mercy of providers who have to balance price, quality, and reducing waste, leading to the prevalence of ultra-processed meals highlighted by Hegarty.
The Irish Times article also highlights the troubling reliance on UPFs in the scheme. Hegarty points out that meals are often packed with additives and processing aids, such as sodium citrate and maltodextrin, which contribute to long-term health issues like obesity and cardiovascular disease. Moreover, the scheme’s design — often with individual meals packaged in single-use containers — is environmentally unsustainable. These containers, often soiled and non-recyclable, add unnecessary waste during a climate crisis.
If schools were able to work collectively, they could tender contracts that prioritise local, fresh food and minimise packaging waste. Regional suppliers could deliver high-quality meals while reducing environmental impact, but the current patronage model prevents this kind of joined-up thinking.
The solution is to replace the patronage model with a centralised system, similar to local education authorities used in other countries. These bodies could manage school lunch programmes in a way that ensures fairness, efficiency, and quality across all schools. With control over multiple schools in a region, local authorities could:
- Coordinate Resources: Manage contracts with food suppliers regionally, reducing costs and ensuring consistency.
- Support Local Enterprise: Use public funds to partner with local farmers and food producers, promoting fresh, sustainable meals.
- Provide Expertise: Offer schools professional guidance on nutrition and procurement, removing the burden from principals and volunteers.
- Reduce Waste: Streamline packaging and distribution to minimise environmental impact.
The absence of a centralised system yet highlights another issue with the patronage model. Schools are left to fend for themselves, relying on goodwill and guesswork to implement complex programmes. Meanwhile, government funding that could make a real difference is not always used effectively due to the lack of oversight and coordination. Worse still, the isolation of schools means they are not getting value for money or fostering local economic growth.
Expecting individual schools to manage something as important as school lunches without professional support is unrealistic. Yet this is the reality under the patronage model. The result is a patchy system where some children benefit from nutritious meals while others don’t.
If we want to ensure every child in Ireland has access to a healthy, reliable school lunch, we need to address the underlying issues in the patronage model. Getting rid of the free choice, patronage model and establishing local education authorities would give schools the support they need to succeed. It would mean lunch programmes are designed and implemented based on what works best for children, not on the capacity of individual schools to organise them.
Local authorities could tender contracts on behalf of entire regions, prioritising fresh, locally sourced food and ensuring every school gets good value for money. This approach would create jobs, reduce waste, and, most importantly, provide children with the healthy meals they deserve.
As Ruth Hegarty and others have pointed out, the Government’s approach to school meals is a missed opportunity to build sustainable, health-promoting food systems. The patronage model is holding us back, and it’s not just religion. It’s almost everything.
