Agenda item

The report was introduced by Tania Townsend, Partnership Development and Strategy Manager; Deirdre Vimpany, Contract Manager; Marjon Willers, Specialist Dietician; and Debbie Stevenson, Deputy Head of Finance for the Children, Employment and Skills directorate.

The following main points were made in the discussion:

·         The Health and Care Scrutiny Committee had previously reviewed the council’s Universal Free School Meals Policy and found it to be successful. The policy worked to provide Islington’s children with nutritious meals and helped to reduce inequalities.

·         The policy was a key part of the council’s commitment to help residents with the cost of living. In Islington 14,000 young people were at risk of food poverty. Work carried out by the Fair Futures Commission identified that both low and medium income households struggled with the cost of living in Islington.

·         Officers commented on the challenge of implementing the policy in 2009/10; it was explained that some school funding mechanisms operate on the basis of how many pupils are eligible for free school meals under the nationally funded scheme and schools and the local authority did not want to lose this eligibility data. The solution to this was to have every parent apply for free school meals. This allowed the council to assess every child’s eligibility for the national scheme. This approach resulted in an increase in the number of young people identified as being eligible for free school meals, which reduced the cost of funding the council’s universal scheme.  

·         Parents were asked to apply for free school meals in reception and again when their child reached Year 7. This was carried out through an online system.

·         Schools understood the importance of maximising the government funding available for the scheme and worked hard to ensure that all parents applied for free school meals.

·         The council’s school meals catering contractor was Caterlink. Caterlink had been awarded the contract foe 2018-23, with the option to extend for a further two years. The contract was based on enhanced food standards that surpassed the national minimum.

·         Food was required to be fresh and Soil Association certified.

·         School meals were varied throughout the week and reflected the diversity of young people’s cultural backgrounds. There were options for a range of dietary needs.

·         When the policy was implemented, work was required to refurbish some school kitchens. Islington Council assisted with procurement and financing the refurbishment in some instances.

·         School meals were healthier than the average packed lunch. Officers commented on the importance of children’s nutrition. In particular, iron intake was crucial to support cognitive function.

·         School meals introduced young people to fruits and vegetables they may not eat at home. It was reported that beetroot was particularly popular in Islington schools.

·         Four maintained primary schools were outside of the council’s school meals contact. It was advised that these schools were required to meet rigorous standards and officers worked closely with environmental health to ensure that these standards were met.  In response to a question, it was advised that some schools were outside of the council’s school meals contract for historical reasons and wanted to have more control of their school meals. Other schools had left the contract as they were dissatisfied by the service received from a previous contractor and had decided not to reintegrate.

·         It was reported that 90% of pupils opted for a school meal and take up had increased over recent years. The Committee asked why all pupils did not subscribe to the scheme. In response, it was advised that some pupils with allergies and intolerances did not subscribe, even though the contractor was keen to work with parents on allergy and intolerance issues. It was also commented that some children had strict dietary preferences and were extremely selective in their diet.

·         In response to a question, it was commented that officers also worked with Public Health to provide curriculum guidance on nutrition and culinary skills. By Year 6, all pupils were expected to be able to cook a simple savoury meal by themselves.

·         Officers supported the ‘Families for Life’ after school cooking club in which parents and young people aged 2 to 11 could learn to cook meals together. This was held in schools and community centres, however, places were limited to a maximum of 18 per session. The sessions were delivered through the Bright Start family support service.

·         Caterlink had invested in school gardens to support pupils growing their own fruit and vegetables.

·         The Committee queried how the council defined and measured ‘food poverty’. In response, it was advised that a needs assessment had been carried out and would be circulated to members.

·         In response to a question, it was advised that the universal free school meals scheme was particularly beneficial to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with no recourse to public funds. In some instances, the scheme ensured that young people had at least one nutritious meal a day.

·         A member commented that levels of persistent absence in primary schools may have impacted take up. Some young people would not eat a nutritious meal if they did not attend school; this gave an additional impetus to address persistent absence.

·         In response to a question from a member of the public, it was advised that schools educated young people on the carbon footprint of their meals. School kitchens were accredited to the Green Kitchen Standard which recognised energy and water consumption and waste. School kitchens were also working to eliminate the use of cling film by the end of the year.

·         Following a query about vegan meals, it was advised that one day a week a vegetarian meal was served to all pupils. Vegetarian meals were provided every day and there was a limit on the amount of diary school kitchens could serve in a week.

·         A member queried the relationship between school meals and obesity. In response, it was advised that whilst school meals were healthy and nutritious, they only provided around 17% of a child’s nutrition. Obesity was a significant issue among young people, although Islington’s obesity rate was lower than neighbouring boroughs.

·         It was advised that Caterlink was keen to pilot new meals with Islington children; the borough’s young people were very willing to try a diverse range of meals. This was in contrast to some other areas the caterer served, where pupils were less accepting of new and different foods.

The Committee thanked officers for their attendance.

RESOLVED:

That Islington’s Universal Free School Meals Policy, and its contribution to supporting children and families and mitigating food poverty, be noted.