8. The impact of delegation on central services
had the misfortune to be using private catering companies, which had subsequently
ceased trading, or with whom contracts had been terminated unexpectedly, or with
whom other problems had arisen. The DSO had been able to step in at short notice to
supply meals, or to allow a school to buy back into its services. DSOs mentioned that
they generally offered schools the option to buy back into the central service or
contract, even after they had opted to leave.
Future outlook
8.13 The overall view in many LEAs was that when current contracts terminate, more
schools would be exploring changes in their provision. Some would establish individual
contracts that would ensure that if meal provision was profitable, then that profit would
stay with the school. One DSO was facing the loss of contracts in the forthcoming
year.
Coming up to the end of our contract, with a year’s option for extension, so a lot of
consultation with schools over the next term. I think some of the secondary schools will go,
because they have been watching what some of the others have been doing and the feedback
we’ve been getting is that if they did, they would all come back to us for support. I think it will
be a very mixed bag next time round.
8.14 The catering officer in a shire county who was expecting DSO contracts to continue to
reduce, anticipated that without the cross subsidy she could currently apply, the cost of
delivering services to rural schools would inevitably rise. The consequence of this would
be that these schools would either need to leave the main contract and make local
provision, or that elected councillors would decide that the meals service should be
subsidised. Alternatively, the county would face differential meal prices in rural schools,
which would have implications for the budgets delegated to cover free school meals.
Another central catering service, in an urban situation, which had struggled to maintain
only minimal price rises, saw its future options as either to raise prices substantially or
lower the specification for its meals.
8.15 However, in an LEA in which a central contractor provided transported meals to
smaller schools, there were indications that the LEA might need to develop some
central services for them in the future. In that authority, there was a growing concern
that delegation would lead to the loss of school kitchens which currently supplied the
smaller schools. The LEA catering officer was considering the option that should that
trend continue, then they might have to provide a central kitchen to supply those meals.
If more schools opt for delegation, it limits the LEA’s flexibility to provide meals for schools
with no kitchen of their own. It will become more difficult to guarantee hot cooked food to
small rural schools with no kitchens. If that happens we will have to consider providing a
kitchen that provides that.
8.16 One DSO remained hopeful, trusting that head teachers and governing bodies would
continue to support the central service.
There is no downside at the moment but it will be if a number of schools do find alternative
provision, it could mean the closure of the in house provision. That is the big downside.
Currently we haven ,tgot there and we hope we never do.....On the whole they feel that it is
better to stay in house simply because of economies of scale and they are aware that if large
numbers did go out that would mean the end of the school meals service. Some heads take more
of a wider view than just their own particular school.
48