AFTER nursery children received a second round of fish paste sandwiches for lunch last week there are at last signs that the council is sorting out the city's school meals fiasco.
Education chiefs told the Evening News only days ago that they would take immediate action to improve the quality of the lunches after a nutritionist examined samples we had obtained and branded them "unhealthy". It is our intention to hold them to
that and hopefully the series of meetings which have taken place since our investigation will result in positive action being taken.
But it is a pity things ever came to this and the blame for this ludicrous situation lies squarely on the shoulders of the "budget group" who made the decision in the first place to axe the hot meals service.
Clearly from what has emerged since, this decision appears to have been taken without due diligence. It has to be assumed it was arrived at purely on cost grounds with little thought to the welfare of the children affected. The justification is that the closure of six school kitchens and serving packed lunches to 14 out of 18 council nurseries and to primary and secondary pupils on a Friday would save the council £500,000 a year.
In seeking further to defend the measure the council also cited a decline in the numbers of children taking school meals. It seems odd that they have since stated it is their intention to consult with teachers and parents over ways to encourage more children to take school meals.
For who in their right mind would think that serving up fish paste or cheese paste sandwiches could do anything but rapidly accelerate the decline in take up? It is certainly a less attractive proposition than previous menus which offered items like roast turkey and breaded haddock.
It is not good enough for councillors, including education leader Marilyne MacLaren and deputy leader of the council Steve Cardownie, to turn around after the event and say that they are disappointed with the standard of packed lunches being served.
The time to question the quality and nutritional value of the alternative to hot meals was prior to the decision to axe them being taken. It would have been the first question that any responsible parent – given the opportunity – would have asked. If any assurances were given at all with regard to quality they appear to have been swallowed without proper examination.
The council's handling of this issue certainly does not live up to Mrs MacLaren's boast that healthy eating and high quality school and nursery meals are a "high priority".
But if she and her coalition colleagues are serious about living up to this we look forward to them taking positive action soon to reassure parents that this is still the case.
