Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 14 Mar 2007

14 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Henry, Hugh Lab Paisley South Watch on SPTV

I will come to that point in a moment.

Regardless of whether a school would advertise a product that it could not provide, a health-promoting school should promote physical well-being, which the advertising of an unhealthy product clearly would not. I am sure that Patrick Harvie is aware that the Office of Communications has introduced new rules on broadcast advertising for children and that, in the light of that, the Advertising Standards Authority has confirmed that its code will be revised.

Proposed new subsection (6)(b), which amendment 21 seeks to insert in section 1, would require schools not to accept sponsorship from any company that manufactured food or drink that did not meet the requirements on nutrition. That means that a company that produced even one product that did not meet those requirements would be unable to promote any of its products that met the requirements.

I do not support that concept, because the bill's purpose is not to condemn or punish manufacturers for producing products that do not meet our requirements; it is about ensuring that what happens in and around schools promotes good health and well-being. It aims to ensure that each item of food and drink offered in schools is sufficiently healthy. I do not think that amendment 21 would contribute to that aim because, rather than targeting products that breach the regulations on nutrition, it seeks—unfairly—to target manufacturers associated with particular brands, as Patrick Harvie suggested in his intervention. Apart from anything else, such a restraint on trade might not comply with European Union law. However, that is a side issue at this stage.

In addition, amendment 21 would discourage companies from developing new and healthy products. If they could not promote such products in schools, they might stop developing them entirely, which is not something with which we would want to associate ourselves.

The guidance on commercial activities in schools that has already been issued to local authorities and schools includes consideration of what should be taken into account when sponsorship for commercial organisations is agreed. It notes that commercial activities in schools can be positive, can provide schools with funding, materials and equipment and can build links between schools and the business community. It advises that commercial activity should be viewed cautiously because, in some cases, a company or product might be in conflict with a school's ethos and educational aims. In other words, schools should ca' canny when they make such decisions.

My view is that decisions that schools take about sponsorship or any other commercial activity should be taken on a case-by-case basis and should not be legislated against by a blanket amendment such as Patrick Harvie's. Amendment 21 gives undue prominence to an aspect of health promotion that can be dealt with more appropriately and more flexibly in guidance.

The requirement that our bill places on schools to be health promoting precludes the provision of food and drink that do not meet the requirements on nutrition. Given that that is the case, it is not clear why a school would wish to advertise such a product but, if it proceeded to do so, it would certainly be in breach of the health-promotion duty and would be inspected negatively as a result.

Proposed new subsection (6)(a), which amendment 21 seeks to insert into section 1, is unnecessary. In addition, amendment 21 could have legal complications. I do not think that the bill needs Patrick Harvie's amendment. I hope that he has been reassured by what I have said and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 14 Mar 2007

In the same item of business