Well let the council Leaders eat cake and allow the children to eat properly. Nutrition is not rocket science except when you are an astronaut and then it is really important but let the kids eat healthily not all that Greggs cr8ap!

..and here was me thinking that was a parental responsibility??!

When councils signed up for their funding deal with the government, the deal included delivering this policy.

The implication for councils is either they have been incompetent and spent the money elsewhere. Or they have the money and are just angling for more.

Personally i see councils in many areas as just an unnecessary teir of bueacracy and many of the powers they gained from the old regional councils should lie with the scottish parliament.

It seems daft to me for central government to set a policy and then councils then having to implement a policy they do not believe in or for them less of a priority than something else. Ring fencing just forced councils to adopt the priorities of central government.

If councils are simply implmenting central government policy then that is not real local democracy and that surely is the purpose of councils. As such national services like education and much of policing etc would be better run directly (but in a decentralise way) by the scottish parliament.

"Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary, announced the policy last week after a £5 million pilot project. However, no new money is being provided to councils."

I'm sorry, but this is simply more utterly misleading reporting from the Scotsman and its band of two-bit hacks...

The money IS there and formed part of the financial settlement ALL of Scotland's Councils signed up to...if Council's don't have the money, it's because they've spent it on other things...that's their own problem, not hte Scottish Government's...if Council's can't get their sums right, then it's their own problem...

I wonder how many of the councils who cannot afford free meals for the children are Labour run administrations. I bet they can still afford massive salaries for the top management people who often have no external management experience nor professional skills except being card carrying memebers of the SLAP party and long term employee's of the council.

In this modern age of telecommunications do we really need all this councils and their pensions and salaries.

The councils just eat our money and line their own staffs pockets. Overpaid & under worked is the motto at Council Offices the length of the Counrty.

#2

Sometimes the parents do not have the money to provide proper and nutritious meals to their children what with skyrocketing heating costs and the obscene prices one has to pay for petrol.

Have a little milk of human kindness.

If the councils cannot find the money then your government has to step in and cover the shortfall since a children cannot learn if he or she is hungry.

#TimW1234

This is not really about money. School meals are already free to those who are deemed to be poorer. This is a scheme for universally free school meals for the first 3 yrs of school. In many ways the free school meal idea is more about trying not to stigmatise those that receive free school meals.

School meals also tend to be quite cheap and therefore if it was just about money as you suggest why would kids spend more money buying more expensive(or roughly the same) non school meals say from a chip shop.

By making it free you are in effect removing the choice of the kid to go elsewhere with the cash his parents have given him. Being free the parent will not have to give the kid cash. As such you are trying coerse kids and their parents to make the kid eat healthier. That is understandable but not about being poor as you suggest.

Where I do not understand this policy. Is the first 3 yrs are the least likely to be in a position to go at lunchtime to the chippie.

The other issue is are school meals healthy and appetising. The biggest critism is school meals are actually not healthy, (and schools sell junk snacks etc) rather than who is paying for it.

Part of the fundamental issue that is not being address is the amount of exercise taken. Schools have moved away from sport over the last few decades to some extent. Boys in the 70s were not so fat not because of diet but becuase they would always being playing football (lunchtimes, playtimes, after school).

Of course it is the parents responsibility to feed their children by go without themselves if necessary. But if they are in financial straights then they should already be getting help through child mainteneance and other benefits so why should strapped council and council tax payers foot their bill

Of course it is the parents responsibility to feed their children by go without themselves if necessary. But if they are in financial straights then they should already be getting help through child mainteneance and other benefits so why should strapped council and council tax payers foot their bill

7 The policy is specifically free nutritious school meals. It is part of the drive to improve diet, catching them young.

In Finland - where free school meals are universal - the pupils actually help to cook the meals and I imagine that is where the Government sees this heading once it is established. Of course some schools do not have the capacity - some new PFI schools do not even have kitchens. So there are big challenges in taking the same approach as Finland.

#Miss H

I was responding to a poster who said a policy for poorer kids ie about money. As kids from poorer backgrounds already get free school meals it is not (although i did point out the issue of kids getting stigmatised if they have free school meals).

There are a few issues here:
- One ensuring school meals are nutrious. Are they good enough quality at the moment? And making sure it tastes decent. (the free milk you used to get was enough to put you off milk for life). If you serve up technically nutrious food that kids do not like they simply will not eat it.

-should it be free. (we should not confuse this issue with the one above).

I have still to see an argument for why it should be free for the first 3 yrs. My point being that either we are saying the parent who takes their kid home at lunchtime is not feeding them well. Or they are eating badly at school at the moment? Kids in the first 3 yrs are not going to be going to the chippy etc. That is when you are abit older i would think.

The other issue is exercise. schools seem to be failing kids for exercise. A culture that lacks sporting participation has developed. You do not see kids playing football the way they used to. Part of the school circulum should be fitness of pupils. There has seemed to be a decline since the teacher strikes of the 80s. And also parent participation with all the rules and regulations (which may have been brought in for good reasons).

One final thing. When i was at school many moons ago. In primary you played football every lunchtime and every interval. Bringing in a culture of everyone going to school lunches will stop that type of thing.

In secondary you had all the lunchtime sports stuff ie basketball and volleyball clubs. You simply cannot go to these type of things if you do school meals.

School meals general meant hanging around doing nothing for half an hr in a queue.

#Miss H

I agree with making school meals healthy. I do not think anyone would disagree. The question is what is the argument for making them free particularly in early primary yrs?

Is the policy to discourage parents taking kid home at lunchtime?
Is the policy to discourage pack lunches by the parent?

Because as i see it at the age they will be eating either with their parent, a pack lunch or school meals.

#8 Raymond Thomas Brooke: Some parents don't have the cookery or/and the budget skills to provide their children with health nutrtuional balanced meals.

Theres a whole genreation of adults outthere who didn't do or did limited classes in Home Econmics at school.

Community Education can work wonders in improveing the parents cooking and budgeting skills. But some times adults will admit that they are put off make these healithy meals cause they fear their children won't eat them. This is patutularly a problen in low income families where money is tieght and they fear there children will starve.

You give children at primary schools in paticlar the P1-3 free nutrional blanced meals and you take away the fear that the child won't eat.

Biside theres nothing like a wee bit of peer presure to get children eating certain foods, with this, there is a chance they will be encouraged to eat more healther meals.