1

REPORT OF THE SCRUTINY REVIEW

PANEL ON SCHOOL MEALS

Introduction 1. This report sets out the conclusions and recommendations arising from

the Scrutiny Review Panel investigation of the provision of school meals in Leicestershire.

Scope of the Review 2. The Education Scrutiny Committee on 27th February 2006 resolved to

appoint a Five-Member Scrutiny Review Panel to: (i) Examine the current organisational arrangements for the

provision of lunchtime meals in Leicestershire schools, including:

• a review of the options – including the benefits, disadvantages and risks for providing the service after April 2008 (the expiry of the current contractual arrangements).

• the role of the Local Authority in providing effective support to all schools, as a consequence of any future changes to the way in which the service might be provided.

• how future provision could support the wider agenda to promote healthy eating and development of a ‘whole school’ approach, through closer links with the Healthy Schools programme, in order to underpin the appropriate Every Child Matters framework priorities.

(ii) Report on its conclusions and recommendations to the relevant

Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet.

Membership of the Panel 3. Through the political group processes, Dr M O’Callaghan CC, Mrs R

Page CC, Mrs M L Sherwin CC, Mr E D Snartt CC and Mr D O Wright CC were nominated to serve on the Panel, with Dr M O’Callaghan being appointed as its Chairman.

2

Conduct of the Review 4, The Panel met on six occasions between 3 April and 18 September

2006. The following people/organisations were invited to attend the Panel’s meetings:

Carol Puddephat National Farmers’ Union Paul Sheppard East Midlands Fine Foods Jane Roberts Health Schools Manager Aileen Smith Senior Dietician, Primary Care Trust Andrew Wilson Wilson Vale Catering Management Simon James Managing Director, Initial Catering

Services Ltd Sally Lane Operations Manager, Initial Catering

Services Ltd Sandra Russell Head of Catering, Warwickshire

County Council Pat Hughes Operations Manager, Warwickshire

County Council Sue Galvin Catering Manager, East Riding of

Yorkshire County Council Alan Woods Catering Unit Manager, East Riding of

Yorkshire County Council Karen Grewcock Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation Peter Stafford-Allen Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation 5, The Panel also visited the following Leicestershire schools and talked

to pupils, catering staff and supervisory/teaching staff to obtain views about the current school meals arrangements operating at these schools:

� Ashby Church of England Primary School

� Farndon Fields Primary School, Market Harborough

� Hastings High School, Burbage

� Humphrey Perkins High School, Barrow upon Soar

� Shepshed High School

� Swallowdale Primary School, Melton Mowbray

� Woodford Grange Primary School, Oadby

6. The information considered by the Panel during the course of the

review is listed in Appendix A to this report.

3

Background Local Context 7. Leicestershire has 287 schools and a Pupil Referral Unit. Of these 273

(95%) schools provide a hot school meals service of which:-

� 232 schools have their meals provided by Initial Catering Services via 7 area based contracts. Where school meals are provided by Initial they employ the catering staff but the school employs the supervisory staff ;

� 41 schools make their own catering arrangements, with 2 using a

private contractor (and sharing a proportion of any profits) and 39 employing their own staff;

� There are 15 small primary schools, which currently do not have a

lunchtime meal service due to insufficient demand but a service is to be provided at 3 of these schools;

� 159 schools have production kitchens, where school meals can be

prepared for those schools and other schools. 108 primary and special schools and 1 high school are without production facilities. A list of facilities at each of the schools in the County is attached at Appendix B. The number of schools without production kitchens varies between districts, the Melton Borough having the highest number of schools without production kitchens;

� 114 schools have dining centres, which have small kitchens

where food produced elsewhere can be served; 8. During 2005, after extensive consultation was carried out with schools,

the Cabinet agreed to extend the contract with Initial Catering Services until the end of April 2008 so that the Council can consult schools during January 2007 about the future arrangements for the school meals contract. The current contract with Initial is worth approximately £6 million.

9. Approximately 22,500 meals are produced daily in all schools

(including those in contract and those making their own arrangements), of which 20% comprise free meals. The current take up of free meals is 80% of the entitlement. The current selling price of a school meal is £1.65 per day in Primary Schools and £1.90 in Secondary schools.

National Context 10. In March 2005, in response to public concern, the Government

announced its intention to transform school meals, with £220 million funding to be made available to schools and local authorities over the next three years. A School Meals Review Panel, comprising dieticians,

4

nutritionists, head teachers, Governors, support staff and industry and catering professionals, was formed to develop detailed proposals. The recommendations of the panel formed the report ‘Turning the Tables: transforming school food’ on which the DfES began a public consultation on 3rd October 2005.

11. The report made a series of recommendations, including, the

introduction of nutrient and food based standards for school meals, promotion of healthy eating in schools and, support to those responsible for meeting the new standards. The recommendations have significant implications for local authorities, schools and catering services and represent an important element in the delivery of healthy outcomes for young people under Every Child Matters.

12. In response to one of the Panel’s recommendations to develop similar

standards for school food other than lunch, including that offered in vending machines and tuckshops, the School Food Trust (SFT), a non-departmental public body sponsored by the DfES, was asked to consider what those standards should be and to draw up proposals. These proposals were the subject of a separate consultation during March 2006

13. The DfES has now published its final decisions based on these two sets of recommendations and the associated consultations. These cover:

� food-based standards for school lunches (to come into force from September 2006 on an interim basis, but in final form from September 2008 in primary schools and September 2009 in secondary and special schools);

� nutrient-based standards for school lunches (applying from 2008 and 2009 in primary schools and secondary/special schools respectively);

� standards for all school food other than lunches (to be introduced from September 2006 but becoming law from September 2007).

Regulations will be made, following Royal Assent for the Education and Inspections Bill, covering the introduction of these standards according to the above timescales.

14. The School Food Trust’s guide to introducing the government’s new food –based standards for school lunches have now been published. The Council is already meeting these standards through the main school meals contract with Initial Catering Ltd. Those schools not included in the main contract have been advised of the new standards and of their obligations.

5

School Meals Funding and Recent Developments 15. Transitional funding in two parts has been received from the

Government to achieve improvements in school meals. Targeted School Meals Grant of £360,760 was given direct to the Council for 2005/06 and School Meals Grant of £379,655 direct to schools in 2005/06. With the agreement of the Schools Forum, the School Meals Grant was retained centrally to improve the service. This funding is only available for three years. To put this additional funding into context, the current gross expenditure on school meals in Leicestershire is £6.1million per annum, including £3.75 million on contractual payments to Initial Catering Ltd.

16. The Government’s additional funding is being used in the following

ways to improve the school meals service in Leicestershire:

� Improving Primary School menus to include two portions of vegetables, including a tossed salad option;

� Potatoes are offered as carbohydrates , along with bread and pasta;

� Some convenience foods are still offered but these are of good quality;

� The emphasis is on persuading children to have a balanced diet;

� In Secondary Schools it is accepted that it is more difficult to change the habits of older children, but hot and cold deli products have been introduced, with different types of bread, jacket potatoes and mixed salad boxes , together with ‘meal deals’ to discourage the purchase of individual food items;

� Set prices have been introduced to reduce the issue of children having sufficient money to make choices about their meal;

� Although, ideally, all schools should have production kitchens, it is not affordable to provide them at all schools. The proportion of schools that have production kitchens will be increased with four new production kitchens being introduced this year;

� Crockery and Table Monitors are being re-introduced in Primary Schools. Increasingly, children are unused to sitting down with their family to eat meals and these actions seek to change social behaviour to make meal times a more sociable event;

� Cashless payment systems are being piloted in Secondary Schools.

6

Outcome of discussions at panel meetings a) Initial Catering (current main contractor) 17. At its meeting on 9th June 2006 the Panel received a presentation from

Simon James, Managing Director, and Sally Lane, Operations Manager, of Initial Catering Services Ltd, the current main contractor for providing school meals in Leicestershire. The presentation focused on the work being done by Initial, in partnership with the County Council, to improve the delivery of the school meals service to meet the Government’s drive for healthier, better balanced and more nutritional meals. A summary of the main points arising from the presentation is given at Appendix ‘C’ but the Panel noted that:

• Initial were very positive about their relationship with the Council and the progress being made to develop the service in Leicestershire;

• Initial pointed out that some other local authorities they worked with were not as proactive as Leicestershire and still worked with restricted and outdated specifications and were slow to move to a ‘freshly cooked’ approach;

• Not all local authorities had ploughed the additional Government funding into improving menus;

• All senior schools would be adopting the new style menus from September 2006;

• Not all headteachers regarded catering as a priority and it would be difficult to improve the environment and meals experience at schools where the minimum possible time was allocated for lunch;

• It was difficult to maintain the quality and presentation of food that was sent to other schools from production kitchens, particularly if a lengthy journey was involved.

b) Delivery of the School Meals Service in other Authorities 18. At the request of the Panel, the officers obtained summary information

about how all English local authorities with education responsibilities make arrangements to provide school meals. The summary information supplied to the Panel runs to 163 pages but the position can be summarised as follows:-

7

Total number of local authorities

In-house provision

External contractor

Schools make their own arrangements

148

89 49 10

For county councils the position is as follows:

County Councils In-house

provision

External contractor

Schools make their own arrangements

34 20

11 3

Note:- In many cases, even where a central contract exists to

provide school meals, either through in-house arrangements or

an external contractor, some schools make their own

arrangements 19. Paragraphs 7 to 9 summarise the current arrangements for the delivery

of the school meals service in Leicestershire. The Panel invited officers from the East Riding of Yorkshire County Council and Warwickshire County Council to its meeting on 20th June to give presentations on their arrangements for providing school meals. Briefly, the systems they operate are as follows:

East Riding of Yorkshire County Council

20. The Council’s Catering Unit has a service level agreement (SLA) with

those schools that have agreed to sign up to the Council’s service. The schools employ the catering staff themselves but, through the SLA the Council provides operational and technical support on all aspects of school catering. The school meals budget is ‘top-sliced’ to finance the Catering Unit’s operation so that schools can seek as much support as they need as and when they need it.

Warwickshire County Council

21. In Warwickshire the school meals service is provided ‘in-house’ by the

Warwickshire County Caterers catering service which employs and manages the catering staff in all the schools that have signed up to the contract.

22. More details about the School Meals Services in the East Riding of

Yorkshire and Warwickshire are provided in Appendices ‘D’ and ‘E’ respectively.

8

c) Putting the ‘local’ back in school meals 23. One issue the Panel was keen on addressing was the possibility of

using more local produce in school meals. A number of meetings were held with organisations to explore this and details are set out below:-

Initial Catering Services Ltd 24. The current contractor for the main contract, Initial Catering Services

Ltd, tends to use local suppliers for fruit, vegetables and milk but national suppliers for other foodstuffs.

25. Although Initial tries to use local suppliers wherever possible, costs can

be prohibitive and it is easier to keep costs down by negotiating large-scale contacts with national suppliers.

Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (PSFPI) 26. At its meeting on 16th May, the Panel received a presentation from Paul

Sheppard, the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (PSFPI) Co-ordinator for the East Midlands Region on this initiative which was launched by DEFRA in 2003. The initiative aims to develop a world class sustainable farming and food sector and healthier and prosperous communities by encouraging the public sector to use more local suppliers for food and catering services.

27. The Panel was particularly interested to hear about the Leicestershire

Schools Pilot Research Project which aims to match schools, products and prices with local suppliers. This project was undertaken with those schools that operate their own arrangements for school meals outside the main contract with Initial Catering Services. More information about the PSFPI activities is included in Appendix ‘F’.

Wilson Vale Catering Management Ltd 28. At its meeting on 9th June the Panel received an interesting

presentation from Andrew Wilson of Wilson Vale Catering Management Ltd on the general theme of putting the ‘local’ back into school meals contracts. Wilson Vale recently won an award for ‘Success through people’ at the Leicestershire Business Awards.

29. A summary of the key points from Andrew Wilson’s presentation is

attached at Appendix ‘G’. Although most of the company’s work is with the private sector, it does do some catering for schools and its approach is one which has much to commend it. The Panel was also

9

interested to hear Andrew’s views on a strategy (if resources permit) for improving school meals, which are also summarised in Appendix G.

Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation 30. The Panel invited representatives from the Eastern Shires Purchasing

Organisation (ESPO) to its meeting on 18th September to go into more detail about the potential for using more local suppliers and more local produce in the provision of school meals. The Panel was advised that over the last few years ESPO has been working to develop local and sustainable suppliers for fresh food produce.

31. The main issues to address in developing networks of local suppliers

are:

• Creating effective local distribution outlets

• Working with commitment to overcome organisational issues

• Ensuring that there are no losers in the arrangements

• Securing full traceability of the origins of the produce 32. The Panel is keen to promote greater use of local food produce and

local suppliers for the future school meals contract but recognises that ‘going local’ cannot be at the expense of reliability and availability of produce. The Panel was advised that it would be important to build flexibility into the operation, starting with menus and establishing what the market would be for produce suppliers for school meals. It would also be important to recognise what produce is available in season and what could be supplied frozen out of season. Equally, local producers would have to give a commitment to supply to ensure that school meals could be provided

33. ESPO has established numerous contacts with various local food links

organisations so it would be possible, with further work, to establish networks of local food suppliers and to develop an accreditation scheme to secure high standards

35. The Panel concluded that there was good potential to use the

knowledge and purchasing power of ESPO to develop networks of local food producers and suppliers for the school meals service.

d) Healthier Eating and the Wider Health Dimension 36. Statistical evidence collected by the Children and Young People’s

Service suggests that primary school children are beginning to ask for healthier food options. There has been a 13% increase in the take-up of school meals since the new healthier menus were launched on 6th February 2006

10

37. However, it is unlikely that there will be a ‘quick-fix’ in terms of

changing children’s eating preferences overnight. The Panel is of the view that it will take a number of years to achieve the Government’s healthier eating objectives and that this will come about by influencing children in the primary education phase. As these children grow older and move into the secondary phase eating habits in the secondary phase will improve. That is not to say that the Council should not try to encourage healthier eating among older children, (and, indeed, it is doing so), but it will be more difficult to achieve as older children have more access to less healthy options.

38. The Healthy Schools Initiative appears to be having an impact. The

purpose of this initiative is to encourage healthy eating and behaviour and to encourage schools to achieve ‘Healthy Schools’ status by adopting a whole school approach to healthy eating and lifestyle. There are clear links between the drive to improve the quality and nutritional value of school meals and the healthy eating criteria. The adoption of the whole school food policy can, however, be an issue of contention with some parents.

e) Presentation of school meals and the ‘meals environment’ 39. Between 24th April and 9th May 2006 members of the Panel undertook

visits to a variety of Leicestershire schools. The schools visited were selected to represent the different arrangements made for providing school meals and gave members an opportunity to talk to pupils, catering staff and supervisory/ teaching staff about their views as well as an opportunity to sample the variety and quality of food provided. The schools visited are listed below, with a brief note in each case about why the schools were selected for a visit.

� Ashby Church of England Primary School – a school that piloted the

removal of flight trays, the use of crockery, cutlery and table monitors.

� Farndon Fields Primary School, Market Harborough – a school with a production kitchen that is not used to send food to other schools.

� Hastings High School, Burbage – the first senior school to adopt the new style menus and a school that has adopted a whole school approach to healthy eating.

� Humphrey Perkins High School, Barrow upon Soar – a non-contract school that makes its own arrangements for providing school meals. It uses a cashless payment system, employs its own catering staff, including a Restaurant Manager, and has adopted a whole school approach to healthy eating.

11

� Shepshed High School – a school where the meals are provided in an old relocatable Horsa building and where, at the time of the visit, the old-style menu was in use.

� Swallowdale Primary School, Melton Mowbray – a school with a large production kitchen that sends food to other schools. Flight trays are used at this school.

� Woodford Grange Primary School, Oadby – a school with a dining centre, with food brought in from another school. A school with a high ethnic mix of children for whom a separate menu has been developed.

40. The general conclusions drawn from these visits were:-

� There was a strong correlation between having a pleasant atmosphere, good food and choices and improved behaviour – the condition and décor of the building is a significant factor;

� The thumbprint cashless payment system at Humphrey Perkins

High School appeared to work well;

� The prices charged for meals at Humphrey Perkins High School were slightly lower than those at schools in the main contract;

� Standards can vary even where there is a regulated contract and provider – the attitude and motivation of the catering staff is an important factor;

� The use of table monitors appears to work well and children seemed at ease with crockery and cutlery in schools where these had been re-introduced;

� Panel members did not have the opportunity to sample food that had been prepared in a production kitchen and transported to another school and to compare it with food prepared and served in the same school;

� It was noted that the quality of packed lunches given to children varied greatly in health and nutritional value. Members also noted that, for some children, school meals were the only hot meals provided to them during the day.

41. Those members of the Panel who visited Humphrey Perkins High

School (own contract) were extremely impressed with the arrangements that had been introduced there and the Panel agreed that a case study should be produced to describe the arrangements in more detail. The case study is attached at Appendix ‘H’.

42. For schools there is a management issue about the amount of time

taken for lunch. From the perspective of school staff, it is better for the lunch period to be as short as possible because the management of

12

this time can be difficult, especially in the larger secondary schools. However, if the lunch period is kept short this tends to encourage the selection of ‘fast food’ particularly if much of the lunch period is spent queuing for food.

43. Some children prefer to spend the minimum time possible at lunch so

that they can spend time outside the school buildings. This is at odds with the preferred objective of encouraging children to take time to eat a balanced, healthy meal and to make lunch a social and convivial event.

44. Some of the larger upper schools have an ‘open gate’ policy at

lunchtimes and older children tend to prefer to leave the school campus and go to supermarkets or other catering premises if these exist within reasonable walking distance of the school.

f) The way forward for the School Meals Service in Leicestershire 45. There are a number of options for the future provision of school meals

in Leicestershire after the current contract with Initial Catering Services Ltd ends in 2008. These are as follows:

• Going out to tender for a new cross-county contract which is Local Authority led;

• Providing the service in-house;

• Providing the service in-house, but with external assistance;

• Supporting schools to organise their own catering;

• Recommending that schools organise into areas to arrange their own catering

• Recommend the model used by East Riding of Yorkshire (ie, schools employ their own staff but have support from the local authority which is financed by taking money from their budgets at source);

• Individual school/group contracts with one or more private contractors.

46. A copy of a briefing paper that summarises the advantages and

disadvantages of each of these options is attached at Appendix ‘I’.. 47. At its meeting on 18th September 2006 the Panel considered a report of

the Director of Children and Young People’s Service that set out an estimated financial summary for four of the options, namely:

• Providing the service in-house;

• Awarding the contract to an external contractor;

13

• Delegating the budget to schools to organise their own school meals but with schools making their own decision whether to buy back central support;

• The East Riding of Yorkshire model, ie delegating the budget to schools to organise their own school meals but top-slicing the budget to enable the Council to provide central support and guidance.

48. The financial summary includes an assessment of the benefits and

limitations of each of the options. It also contains commercially sensitive information, which if disclosed may prejudice the County Council’s negotiating position when the current contract comes up for renewal in 2008 and, therefore, disclosure would not be in the public interest. That information has therefore been excluded from this report and will be made available to members only.

Resource Implications 49. The estimated financial implications of the four main options for the

way forward considered by the Panel are set out in Appendix J. Key Conclusions 50. The Panel’s key conclusions are:

a) There are a number of options for providing school meals in Leicestershire when the current contract expires in 2008. The Panel considers that the four preferred options are::

� Providing the service in-house;

� Awarding the contract to an external contractor;

� Delegating the budget to schools to organise their own school meals but with schools making their own decision whether to buy back central support;

� The East Riding of Yorkshire model, ie delegating the budget to schools to organise their own school meals but top-slicing the budget to enable the Council to provide central support and guidance.

b) Whatever form the future school meals contract takes, all staff

should be employed on the same terms and conditions; c) All future options for providing school meals should have the

potential for developing links with local suppliers and providers;

14

d) The Council should show the way forward by encouraging children to go for healthier eating options and to promote the benefits of healthier eating even if this means that charges may have to increase (this could meet with customer resistance which would have financial implications);

e) There is a need to look at the whole issue of menus, presentation,

suppliers, choice offered, wastage and the environment in which meals are eaten;

f) The Council needs to be clear about the objectives it wishes to set

for the school meals service and to agree these with schools;

g) Schools regarded as demonstrating best practice should be encouraged to share their experience with other schools;

h) Approaches used by other local authorities should be studied with a

view to piloting different options in individual schools, with the agreement of those schools;

i) Work should be undertaken with local supermarkets to promote

healthy food options in school lunch boxes; Recommendations 51. The Panel recommends:

(a) That a joint service between Schools and the County Council for providing school meals be adopted as the Council’s preferred choice for the purposes of consultation with schools before the new meals contract is advertised. Schools would organise their own catering and employ the catering staff with the County Council providing support with menus and nutrition, with purchasing and general guidance. The school meals budget would be delegated to schools but top-sliced to pay for the Council’s support. This model, used by the East Riding of Yorkshire County Council, has the following advantages over the other options:-

� Financial; � Responsive to local needs; � Limits the risk to schools; � Retains a key role for the local authority in providing

guidance and support to all schools; � Has the potential to use local produce and suppliers; � Is politically robust.

(b) That an options appraisal be conducted to further quantify the benefits, limitations and financial implications of each of the four preferred options referred to earlier in the report;

15

(c) That the future school meals contract should have the potential for

developing links with local suppliers and providers of food produce and this should be further explored and developed.

Matthew O’Callaghan CC

Chairman of the Review Panel

16

Appendices

Appendix A Information provided to the Review Panel

Appendix B Information about dining and production kitchen provision in

Leicestershire schools

Appendix C Summary of presentation by Initial Catering Services Ltd

Appendix D School Meals Service in the East Riding of Yorkshire County

Council

Appendix E School Meals Service in Warwickshire County Council

Appendix F The Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative

Appendix G Summary of presentation by Andrew Wilson of Wilson Vale

Catering Management

Appendix H Case Study – School Meals Provision at Humphrey Perkins

High School

Appendix I Options for the way forward for providing school meals in

Leicestershire

Appendix J

Estimated financial implications of the preferred options for the way forward, including benefits and limitation LIMITED CIRCULATION - SEE PARAGRAPH 48

17

APPENDIX A

INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE REVIEW PANEL

Local

• Report of Director of Children and Young People’s Service ‘Position Statement on School Meals’

• Presentation ‘Overview of school Meals’ given to the Review Panel on 3rd April 2006

• LCC Publicity Leaflet – Transforming School Meals in Leicestershire

• New Primary School Menus

• Fixed Price Principle Menu 2005

• Statistics evaluating the impact of the new Leicestershire Primary Menu comparing meals provided during week ending 3/3/06 with Year to Date figures

• Revised Secondary School Menus

• Location and number of Production Kitchens and Dining Centres in the Initial Contract

• Daily Average Meal provision and Percentage Uptake – sample of Primary and High Schools

• Initial Catering Services – Primary Menu Package, Spring/Summer Term 2006, Production Kitchens

• Leicestershire New Specification (for School Meals) – September 2005 National

• TEN Policy Briefing on the report ‘Turning the Tables: Transforming School Food’

• Children’s Services Network Policy Briefing on the School Food Trust’s report ‘Standards for school food other than lunch’

• Children’s Services Network Policy Briefing on School Food Standards

• Corporate Watch report on School Meals (September 2005)

• Summary information produced by Dewbury Redpoint about how every English local authority with Education responsibilities provides school meals

• School Food Trust – A Guide to introducing the Government’s new food-based standards for school lunches.

18

APPENDIX B

INFORMATION ABOUT DINING AND PRODUCTION KITCHEN PROVISION IN LEICESTERSHIRE SCHOOLS

Cost Code School Production /

Dining Possiblility of Production Unit

0153 ALBERT VILLAGE D

0155 ANSTEY LATIMER D

0156 ANSTEY WOOLDEN HILL D Could be Production

0160 ASFORDBY CAPTAINS CLOSE P

0161 ASFORDBY HILL PRIMARY D

0166 ASHBY C.E. PRIMARY P

0167 ASHBY WILLESLEY P

0168 ASHBY HILL TOP P

0169 ASHBY WOODCOTE D

0186 BARLESTONE C.E. P

0189 BARROW HALL ORCHARD P

0193 BARWELL INFANTS D Production from Sept 06

0194 BARWELL C.E. JUNIOR P

0195 BARWELL NEWLANDS P

0199 BELTON C.E. D

0201 BILLESDON PAROCHIAL D

0206 BIRSTALL RIVERSIDE P

0208 BIRSTALL HIGHCLIFFE P

0210 BITTESWELL D

0212 BLABY STOKES C.E. P

0213 BLABY THISTLEY MEADOW P

0215 BLACKFORDBY PRIMARY NPM

0216 BOTTESFORD C. OF E. P

0220 BRAUNSTONE HOLMFIELD P

0221 BRAUNSTONE MILLFIELD D

0223 BRAUNSTONE RAVENHURST P

0224 BRAUNSTONE KINGSWAY P

0227 BREEDON ON THE HILL ST HARDULPHS D Could be Production

0228 BRINGHURST D

0229 BROUGHTON ASTLEY ORCHARD D

0231 BURBAGE C.E. INFANTS D

0232 BURBAGE JUNIOR P

0233 BURBAGE SKETCHLEY HILL P

0234 BROUGHTON ASTLEY OLD MILL D

0235 BURTON ON THE WOLDS PRIMARY P

0236 BROUGHTON ASTLEY HALLBROOK D

0242 CASTLE DONINGTON ST. EDWARDS D

0243 CASTLE DONINGTON THE ORCHARD D Could be Production

0245 CHURCH LANGTON P

0247 CLAYBROOKE PARVA NPM

0250 COALVILLE ALL SAINTS D

0251 COALVILLE BELVOIRDALE D

19

0253 COALVILLE BROOMLEYS P

0254 COALVILLE WARREN HILLS P

0255 COALVILLE ST. CLARES D

0256 COLEORTON VISCOUNT BEAUMONT D

0257 CONGERSTONE D

0258 COSBY PRIMARY P

0259 COSSINGTON C. OF E. D

0263 GREENFIELD PRIMARY P

0266 CROFT C. OF E. D

0267 CROXTON KERRIAL C. OF E. D

0275 DESFORD PRIMARY P

0278 DISEWORTH D

0280 DONISTHORPE D

0285 DUNTON BASSETT D

0290 EARL SHILTON TOWNLANDS P

0291 EARL SHILTON WEAVERS CLOSE D

0294 EARL SHILTON ST. PETER'S R.C. D Could be Production

0296 EAST GOSCOTE BROOMFIELD P

0303 ELLISTOWN D

0307 ENDERBY DANEMILL/ANNEXE 0308 P

0314 FLECKNEY C.E. P

0315 FOXTON PRIMARY P

0317 FRISBY C. OF E. D

0320 GADDESBY PRIMARY D

0321 GILMORTON CHANDLER C.E. P

0325 GLENFIELD THE HALL P

0326 GLENFIELD PRIMARY P

0328 GLEN HILLS PRIMARY P

0329 GREAT BOWDEN C. OF E. D

0332 GREAT DALBY PRIMARY P

0333 GREAT GLEN ST. CUTHBERTS C.E. P

0335 GRIFFYDAM D

0337 GROBY LADY JANE GREY PRIMARY D

0338 GROBY MARTINSHAW D

0339 GROBY ELIZABETH WOODVILLE P

0341 HALLATON D

0343 HARBY C. OF E. D

0344 HATHERN C. OF E. D

0345 HEATHER PRIMARY P

0346 HEMINGTON D

0348 HIGHAM ON THE HILL C. OF E. D

0351 HINCKLEY HOLLIERS WALK P

0352 HINCKLEY BATTLING BROOK PRIMARY P

0353 HINCKLEY C.E. D

0355 HINCKLEY RICHMOND PRIMARY P

0356 HINCKLEY ST. PETER'S R.C. D

0357 HINCKLEY WESTFIELD INFANTS P

0358 HINCKLEY WESTFIELD JUNIOR P

0361 HOSE C. OF E. D

0362 HOUGHTON ON THE HILL C. OF E. P

0364 HUGGLESCOTE PRIMARY D Could be Production

0366 HUNCOTE PRIMARY D

0367 HUSBANDS BOSWORTH D

20

0371 IBSTOCK INFANTS P

0380 KEGWORTH PRIMARY P

0383 KIBWORTH BEAUCHAMP C.E. P

0385 KILBY C. OF E. D

0387 KIRBY MUXLOE PRIMARY P

0395 L.F.E. STAFFORD LEYS P

0399 LITTLE BOWDEN PRIMARY P

0554 LOUGHBOROUGH ROBERT BAKEWELL P

0555 LOUGHBOROUGH BOOTHWOOD D

0558 LOUGHBOROUGH COBDEN P

0562 LOUGHBOROUGH C.E. PRIMARY D

0565 LOUGHBOROUGH HOLYWELL P

0568 LOUGHBOROUGH ST. MARY'S R.C. D

0569 LOUGHBOROUGH SACRED HEART D

0573 LOUGHBOROUGH RENDELL D Could be Production

0575 LOUGHBOROUGH ROSEBERY D

0578 LOUGHBOROUGH SHELTHORPE D

0580 LOUGHBOROUGH THORPE ACRE INFANTS P

0581 LOUGHBOROUGH THORPE ACRE JUNIOR P

0584 LOUGHBOROUGH STONEBOW P

0587 LONG CLAWSON C. OF E. D

0588 LONG WHATTON D

0592 LUBENHAM C. OF E. P

0595 LUTTERWORTH SHERRIER C.E. P

0596 LUTTERWORTH WYCLIFFE PRIMARY P

0602 MARKET BOSWORTH C.E. PRIMARY P

0603 MARKET HARBOROUGH MEADOWDALE P

0604 MKT. HARBOROUGH C.E. P

0606 MKT. HARBOROUGH FARNDON FIELDS P

0607 MKT. HARBOROUGH THE RIDGEWAY P

0608 MARKET HARBOROUGH ST. JOSEPH R.C. P

0610 MARKFIELD MERCENFELD P

0611 MEASHAM C.E. PRIMARY P

0616 MELTON MOWBRAY BROWNLOW D

0618 MELTON MOWBRAY THE GROVE D

0619 MELTON MOWBRAY SWALLOWDALE P

0621 MELTON MOWBRAY SHERARD D

0622 MELTON MOWBRAY ST. FRANCIS D Production from Sept 06

0623 MELTON MOWBRAY ST. MARY'S D

0624 MOIRA INFANTS D

0627 MOUNTSORREL C.E. P

0629 NAILSTONE DOVE BANK D

0630 NARBOROUGH RED HILL D

0631 NARBOROUGH THE PASTURES D

0632 NARBOROUGH GREY STOKES P

0633 NEW SWANNINGTON PRIMARY P

0634 NEWBOLD VERDON PRIMARY D

0635 NEWBOLD COLEORTON D

0638 NORTH KILWORTH ST. ANDREW'S D

0642 OADBY BROCKS HILL P

0643 OADBY BROOKSIDE P

0644 OADBY LANGMOOR P

0646 OADBY LAUNDE P

21

0647 OADBY WOODLAND GRANGE D

0657 OAKTHORPE PRIMARY P

0659 OLD DALBY C. OF E. P

0664 PACKINGTON C.E. D

0667 QUENIBOROUGH C. OF E. D

0668 QUORN ST. BARTHOLOMEWS P

0670 RATBY PRIMARY P

0671 WOODSTONE CP P

0673 REARSBY C. OF E. NPM

0674 REDMILE C. OF E. D

0678 ROTHLEY C.E. P

0685 SAPCOTE ALL SAINTS C.E. D

0690 SHARNFORD D

0693 SHEEPY MAGNA C. OF E. D

0694 SHEPSHED OXLEY D

0695 SHEPSHED NEWCROFT D Production from Sept 06

0696 SHEPSHED ST. BOTOLPHS P

0697 SHEPSHED ST. WINEFRIDE'S D

0699 SILEBY REDLANDS D

0700 SNARESTONE D

0701 WOODSTONE CP (LEICESTER ROAD) D

0702 SOMERBY PRIMARY D

0703 SILEBY HIGHGATE P

0705 SOUTH KILWORTH C. OF E. NPM

0706 STANTON UNDER BARDON D

0707 STATHERN PRIMARY D

0709 STOKE GOLDING ST. MARGARETS C.E. D

0710 STONEY STANTON MANORFIELD C.E. P

0712 SWANNINGTON C. OF E. D

0714 SWINFORD C. OF E. D

0715 SWITHLAND PRIMARY D

0716 SYSTON MERTON D Production from 2006

0717 SYSTON ST. PETER & ST. PAUL P

0721 THORNTON PRIMARY D

0723 THRINGSTONE PRIMARY D

0726 THURCASTON RICHARD HILL D

0728 THURLASTON C. OF E. D

0729 THURMASTON CHURCH HILL INFANTS D

0730 THURMASTON CHURCH HILL JUNIOR P

0731 THURMASTON EASTFIELD D

0732 THURMASTON BISHOP ELLIS R.C. P

0735 THURNBY ST. LUKES C.E. D

0739 TUGBY C. OF E. P

0744 ULLESTHORPE C. OF E. D

0752 WALTHAM C. OF E. D

0754 WHETSTONE C.E. P

0755 WHETSTONE BADGERBROOK D

0756 WHITWICK C.E. PRIMARY P

0757 WHITWICK HOLY CROSS D

0760 WIGSTON ALL SAINTS C.E. P

0762 WIGSTON THE MEADOW PRIMARY P

0764 WIGSTON WATERLEYS D

0765 WIGSTON GLENMERE PRIMARY P

22

0768 WIGSTON LITTLE HILL PRIMARY P

0769 WIGSTON THYTHORN FIELD PRIMARY P

0771 SOUTH WIGSTON FAIRFIELD P

0772 SOUTH WIGSTON THE PARKLAND P

0774 WIGSTON ST. JOHN FISHER R.C. D Could be Production

0778 WITHERLY C. OF E. D

0780 WOODHOUSE EAVES ST. PAULS P

0782 WORTHINGTON PRIMARY P

0785 WYMONDHAM ST. PETER'S D

0900 COALVILLE FOREST WAY P

0901 HINCKLEY DOROTHY GOODMAN SPECIAL D

0904 MELTON BIRCHWOOD D Could be Production

1010 ANSTEY MARTIN HIGH P

1030 ASHBY IVANHOE P

1080 BIRSTALL STONEHILL P

1100 BOTTESFORD BELVOIR HIGH P

1120 BRAUNSTONE WINSTANLEY P

1160 BURBAGE HASTINGS HIGH P

1200 CASTLE DONNINGTON COMM. COLLEGE P

1220 COALVILLE CASTLE ROCK P

1240 COALVILLE KING EDWARD VII P

1330 EARL SHILTON HEATHFIELD P

1370 GROBY BROOKVALE P

1380 GROBY COMMUNITY COLLEGE P

1400 HINCKLEY REDMOOR P

2150 LOUGHBOROUGH GARENDON P

2170 LOUGHBOROUGH LIMEHURST P

2180 LOUGHBOROUGH WOODBROOK VALE P

2210 LUTTERWORTH HIGH P

2280 MKT. HARBOROUGH WELLAND PARK P

2310 MARKFIELD SOUTH CHARNWOOD P

2340 MELTON MOWBRAY JOHN FERNELEY P

2430 OADBY MANOR P

2510 SHEPSHED HIGH D

2520 SHEPSHED HIND LEYS P

2540 STOKE GOLDING ST. MARTIN'S R.C. P

23

APPENDIX C

Summary of presentation by Initial Catering Services Ltd Nutritional Content of Leicestershire School Meals

• The Company was working in partnership with the County Council to meet the Government’s new food-based and nutritional standards;

• Leicestershire had been very proactive in addressing the issues of improving health through better nutritional standards and healthier eating;

• Leicestershire had used additional Government funding to improve menus

• The key to success was to adopt the partnership approach and to involve pupils, parents, headteachers and the primary care trust.

Other Contracts

• Many of the other local authorities with whom Initial had contracts were still operating restricted and outdated specifications and were slow to switch to freshly cooked food;

• Not all authorities had used the additional Government funding to improve food quality and nutritional value, preferring to use it on kitchens and equipment;

Initiatives

• Conducting surveys of parents, pupils and headteachers;

• Menu leaflets with full recipes – parents and headteachers

• Student Councils

• ‘Food Matters’ Newsletter to Parents

• Stickers ‘I tried something new today’

• New starter packs

• Open evenings

• Taster sessions

• Speaking to school assemblies

• Monthly health promotion posters Education/Curriculum Support

• A range of educational resources are offered;

• Staff take part in school assemblies and workshops;

• Software being developed to enable pupils to examine the nutritional impact of their school meal choices

24

Contract Management

• Dedicated Contract Manager

• Team of District Managers

• Management Systems

• Support Services Staff Training

• New staff induction

• Legal requirements

• Health and Nutrition Certificate

• NVQs

• Ongoing Training

• Staff Recognition Partnership

• Supporting Ofsted inspections

• Partnership with schools and the local authority

• Public relations General points arising from Panel discussion and questions

• Training of catering staff is vital to the adoption of good quality standards;

• The attitude of Headteachers is vital – some do not regard catering as a priority, but this is likely to change as Ofsted take more interest in school meals as part of their inspections;

• The payment systems in operation and the time available for lunch can be critical to the lunchtime eating experience, eg it is difficult to re-introduce the use of crockery where time is limited;

• Meals supervisors need to work with children to encourage them to try something new and to think about nutritional value

• The partnership approach is vital to success. Leicestershire’s attitude to partnership is not typical

• It is difficult to maintain the quality of food that is prepared away from the school premises and has to be transported;

• Initial employs a lot of staff who were previously employed by the County Council and they remain committed to delivering a good service.

25

APPENDIX D PROVISION OF THE SCHOOL MEALS SERVICE IN THE EAST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Background

• The corporate school meals contractor went into liquidation;

• An in-house school meals service was not an available option;

• Schools were offered 3 options for a replacement service:

1. Re-tendering of a new corporate contract 2. Schools to operate their own school meals service. 3. Schools to operate their own school meals service supported

through a service level agreement with the Council’s catering service.

• 95% of schools chose option 3 The Service Level Agreement (SLA) The SLA provides operational and technical support on all aspects of school catering, ie:

• Health and Safety

• Food Safety

• Menu Planning

• Staff Training

• Curriculum lead activities

• Equipment repair or replacement

• Policy Guidance

• Out of hours emergency contacts

• Reports on financial performance

• Arranging cyclical testing

• Arranging general maintenance

• Payment of catering invoices The school meals budget is ‘top-sliced’ to finance the operation of the SLA so that schools can seek as much support as they need when they need it.

26

Strengths and weaknesses of the SLA arrangement (as perceived by East Riding) (a) Strengths

• Catering staff are employed by the schools;

• There is no recharge for the SLA;

• The relationship between the schools and the catering unit is built on mutual trust and understanding;

• The catering unit is not responsible for arranging cover for absence/sickness;

• Added Value Support can be provided through curriculum linked activities and competitions, eg A healthy eating recipes book was produced by a competition that attracted over 7000 entries;

• The catering unit has direct control over the purchase of food, services and equipment

(b) Weaknesses

• There is no direct line management of catering teams;

• Difficulties can arise where Headteachers make arrangements without consulting the catering unit;

• Existing catering structure;

• Geographical area of the East Riding;

• No consultation about the appointment of catering staff;

• (Sometimes) unrealistic timescales set by schools. The SLA - Opportunities and Threats (a) Opportunities

• School catering services can be developed without financial risk;

• There is potential to charge schools for additional services such as individual site-based risk assessments;

• Ability to influence change;

• Generic approach to service delivery, giving economies of scale. (b) Threats

• External consultants

• External meal providers;

• Schools choosing to opt out of the SLA.

27

Conclusion The East Riding of Yorkshire County Council recommends their arrangements because they believe it to be the best way to achieve:

• A quality service;

• Good working relationships;

• Good staff morale and development;

• Commitment of a service provision;

• Government agendas, without incurring additional costs.

28

APPENDIX E PROVISION OF THE SCHOOL MEALS SERVICE IN WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL In Warwickshire the school meals service is provided ‘in-house’ by the Warwickshire County Caterers catering service. The service employs and manages the catering staff in all the schools that have signed up to the contract. Current Position

• Nursery Schools – no meals are provided at the 6 nursery schools;

• Primary Schools – 188 use the in house service, 2 have their own arrangements and 6 offer no service;

• Secondary Schools – 17 use the in house service, 10 have their own arrangements and 8 use an external contractor;

• Special Schools – all 10 schools use the in house service. Delivery Arrangements

• Nursery Schools – no kitchens;

• Primary Schools o 120 kitchens; o 68 plus 3 split site dining centres; o 2 satellite units; o 6 plus 1 have no facilities;

• Secondary Schools o 37 plus 2 split site kitchens; o 2 provide catering for neighbouring primary schools;

• Special Schools o 9 kitchens – 1 shared between 2 federated schools on a single

site; School Meals – Presentation

• Primary and Special School Meals o Traditional 2 course meal selling from £1.55 (£1.70) from

September 2006 o Standard choice or choice now being introduced

29

o “Less choice, more variety” (ie less choice offered daily, but more menu variations over a set period);

• Secondary Schools o Cash cafeteria style continuing o Seeking additional serving points (to reduce queuing) o Introducing cashless systems as resources allow o Trialling traditional style meals o Free vegetables/salads given with each protein

Traded Services for Schools

• Virtual organisation of services that are ‘sold’ to schools;

• Set up after a review of traded services;

• Single portal for contact and selling information;

• All offers published together in a single ‘brochure’;

• Electronic ‘signing up’;

• Single branding across all departments;

• Common aims and approach;

• Managed by a Board.

30

APPENDIX F PUBLIC SECTOR FOOD PROCUREMENT INITIATIVE (PSFPI) 1. This initiative was launched by DEFRA in 2003 with five priority

objectives:

• To raise production and process standards

• To increase tenders from small and local producers

• To increase the consumption of healthy and nutritious food

• To reduce adverse environmental impacts of food production and supply

• To increase the capacity of small and local suppliers to meet demand

2. Progress made to date with the PSFPI has focused on engaging with

public sector buyers, producing a simple ‘How to’ supply guide, setting up a series of supply chain workshops and events and developing a number of pilot projects, including the Leicestershire Schools Pilot Research Project

3. Issues for the PSFPI in the future, include:

• Securing future funding for the initiative

• Developing closer supplier/buyer relationships

• Engaging with hard to reach procurers

31

APPENDIX G Summary of presentation by Andrew Wilson of Wilson Vale Catering

Management

• Wilson Vale is a relatively new company, having been in business for four and a half years;

• Although most of the company’s work was with the private sector it did have some work with the public sector and was involved with some catering for schools;

• The company’s policy was to combine the use of local resources and infrastructure with a unique cultural approach – making use of local produce and suppliers, high quality ingredients, investing a great deal of time and resources on appointing the right staff and training them and giving great attention to detail in order to attain a high standard of performance for all its clients;

• The company had approximately 170 suppliers for its 35 clients and local suppliers were always identified for each contract;

• The company only appointed excellent chefs for its contracts and, if it took over staff from previous contractors, invested a great deal of time in training them in the company’s methods;

• Attention to detail was vital and innovation was important – new menus and new methods of presentation were always being considered

Suggested strategy for improving school meals

• Improve the skills and create a new culture;

• Encourage parents to take greater responsibility for ensuring that their children eat healthily;

• Provide closer support for catering employees but give them more autonomy to be creative and innovative

• Make the maximum possible use of fresh ingredients;

• Make school meals into a ‘meals experience’

• Use local suppliers

• Recognise the talents and skills of catering staff and reward them properly

• Transform the way meals are provided – ‘restaurant thinking’

• Accept that it will be a huge task that will probably take 5 years to achieve and will need to be done in stages.

• It was recognised that it would be a difficult task to transform school meals in this way as, generally speaking, resources had been taken out of the service and it had been de-skilled and centralised as a result of the move towards using external contractors to bring down costs.

32

APPENDIX H CASE STUDY – SCHOOL MEALS PROVISION AT HUMPHREY PERKINS HIGH SCHOOL Case study: Humphrey Perkins High School Region: Barrow-upon-Soar, Leicestershire. Organisation: DfES Description: Meals at Humphrey Perkins High School have been revolutionized after the school hired a restaurant head chef, re-named the dining facility as The Restaurant, revamped menus, ditched pre-prepared and the majority of its frozen food in favour of buying ingredients from local suppliers, replaced disposable plates and cutlery with new crockery and steel, and transformed the whole eating experience at the school. Out went all greasy foods, and in came freshly-prepared dishes with wholesome and nutritious ingredients – and as a result, more and more youngsters are opting for a school meal. The school has also been piloting a cashless system, which means restaurant staff no longer have to handle money, students don’t need to carry cash, and parents can discover what their children have been eating. After the first year of operating the new system, 60% of the 1,000 pupils were having a meal at school, compared to 50% 12 months previously, and the school expects numbers to continue rising with each new intake that joins. Benefits:

• Food is freshly prepared into dishes that are nutritionally balanced, wholesome and appealing to students. The range on offer includes a choice of three hot meals (one vegetarian option), plus baked potatoes and salad, tasty sandwiches and baguettes, a hot pudding, fruit, and fresh juices.

• Ingredients are sourced from local butchers, Leicester fruit and vegetable market, a nearby flour mill and other producers in the area, helping to boost the local economy and reduce food miles.

• The restaurant is now a dedicated eating space, rather than a multi-use room, which has helped to create a better ambience and more pleasant eating experience. Breakfast, as well as lunch, is served.

• The school has been piloting a cashless system, which recognises children by their thumb prints and a code, and the system is likely to be expanded into other areas of the school – helping to avoid the need for cash to be carried by students, which will increase security. It also allows parents to check on the food their children have been choosing,

33

and helps head chef Tom Edwards keep track of what’s being consumed.

• Backing for the new catering service, which has ten staff plus the chef catering manager, has come from pupils, parents, governors and teachers, Leicestershire County Council’s school food support service, and everyone connected with the school.

Lessons learned during implementation:

• It’s vital to get everyone involved with the school behind the plan to improve the whole eating experience. A questionnaire to parents, pupils and staff asking what was wrong with the old system sparked the biggest return of a questionnaire ever at the school. “Nearly every parent sent something back – we learned so much from the questionnaires,” explains school manager Alistair Keates.

• Pupils soon got used to the idea that they could no longer buy chips as their lunchtime meal, and quickly adapted to the new healthier options. “Students take about two weeks to get used to something, then they forget about what they had before. They have forgotten they used to have chips as a portion of chips,” adds chef catering manager Tom Edwards.

• As the new system has developed successfully, more local producers are being used to source ingredients. “This is exactly the sort of initiative that brings benefits all round – to the students, to the school and to local suppliers,” says Paul Sheppard, Public Sector Food Procurement Co-ordinator at The Food & Drink Forum, the East Midlands organisation that is spearheading the PSFPI in the region.

Future developments

• The school is continuing to develop the food it offers to students. “It’s a balance between what we want to give the students and what they want to eat,” says chef catering manager Tom Edwards. “We have got something now that is working, and it’s just a case of making it better.”

• More local producers are due to start supplying the school from September 2006.

• The school is investigating future commercial and community opportunities to supply its tasty meals to other local organisations.

• Other schools are looking at Humphrey Perkins High School as a model.

Further information office@humphreyperkins.leics.sch.uk

34

APPENDIX I

SCHOOL MEALS

OPTIONS FOR THE WAY FORWARD FOR LEICESTERSHIRE

Purpose

1. The purpose of this briefing note is to advise the Scrutiny Panel, for School Meals, of the options for the future of the service and any implications that may arise from recommendations made. Options and Implications

2. The following are a list of options available and what the implications

may be to the Local Authority and the individual schools.

•••• Going out to tender for a new cross county contract, which is Local Authority led. This would ensure that all of the establishments/ school meals met all legislative requirements. Cost implications would arise from bringing staff salaries in line with County Council terms and conditions, plus the cost of the re-tendering exercise.

•••• Providing the service in house. This could prove to be a costly exercise and may be considered a retrograde step as the catering has not been in house since 1999. Again all staff salaries would have to be brought in line with the County Council’s terms and conditions. There is also the added risk of providing suitably qualified staff in an industry that is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit for.

•••• Providing the service in house but with external assistance. This would be a costly venture; any external support would need to be paid for while there would still be a cost for the T.U.P.E. transfer of Initial’s local management plus staff salaries.

•••• Supporting schools to organise their own catering. This may prove to be a popular recommendation with some schools as it would give more flexibility however, this is not an option that would suit all schools and consideration would have to be given to the viability of what schools remained, would it be a contract that any private contractors would want? The cost and the staffing risks would move to the individual schools. Support mechanisms are already in place within the School Food Support Service to move forward with this option. If all schools went for this option there would be a cost implication for the School Food Support as an increase of staff would be needed to meet the additional work load. Costs for this support would be

35

costed individually, would all schools pay when budgets are already stretched?

•••• Recommending that schools organise into areas to arrange their own catering. Again this could prove to be a popular option and the majority of the risks would pass to the schools. Schools would need to be aware that some of the smaller schools in their area may not make a profit or break even and the service would need to be subsidised by the group as whole. This would still need support from either the Local Authority or another external body to ensure that all legislative requirements are met.

•••• Recommend the model used by East Riding of Yorkshire. Schools employ their own staff and all schools have the support from the Local Authority, which is taken from their budgets at source. There is less likelihood of them not taking advice if this option were taken. There is still a cost implication for staff salaries and recruitment which would be a school risk.

•••• Individual school/group contracts with one or more private contractors. Could prove to be a costly option as there would be a loss of the economies of scale.

Conclusion

3. While the options and implications will make an interesting debate and

recommendations can be made it must be noted that the final decision for the way forward will be the individual schools and their Governing Bodies.

Officers to Contact Lesley Hagger, Head of Extended Services, Children and Young People’s Service Tel. 0116 2656766 Wendy Philp, Service Manager, School Food Support Service Tel. 01530 278123

mis595pt