Food, Diet and Obesity Committee Report

Motion to Take Note

10:05:00

Moved by

That this House takes note of the Report from the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system (HL Paper 19).

My Lords, I thank the members of the committee for their hard work and dedication, and our wonderful staff team: Stuart Stoner, Lucy Valsamidis, Abdullah Ahmad, Lara Orija and Kate Willett. The advice of our specialist adviser, Professor Martin White, was absolutely crucial. Albert Einstein is said once to have said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Unfortunately, the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations smacks of insanity. Why? Because we have an obesity crisis and a consequent health crisis, which the NHS is meant to clear up. Page 3 of their response accepts that this is real, urgent and caused by bad food—yet there is no commitment to do things differently. There was outrage from food and health campaigners at the Government’s response. But the following sentence appeared in an article in The Grocer periodical: “However, food industry bosses welcomed Streeting’s response to the inquiry”. Well, yes, that says it all—of course they did. They are laughing all the way to the bank with their profits on making our children sick, because the Government have accepted hardly any of the recommendations in the committee’s report. All they have committed to is implementing the policies of the previous Government: reviewing the soft drinks industry levy; implementing the advertising ban on less-healthy food; and banning energy drink sales to children. However welcome these are, they are not enough. Ambition needs action, not just words. We have a new Government with a new mandate and a duty to enhance people’s lives, but all we got was obfuscation and delay. The Food, Diet and Obesity Committee’s remit was to consider the role of foods such as ultra-processed foods and foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat in a healthy diet and tackling obesity. We interpreted that as asking us to recommend how the Government can ensure that all our citizens get access to healthy food, real food, affordable food. The committee looked at how we got here. We heard that our food system has changed over the past 30 years: less cooking from scratch, more fast-food outlets and more ultra-processed foods. These are usually high in calories, highly palatable and high in harmful nutrients such as salt, sugar and saturated fat; they are low in fibre and vitamins, and loaded with additives. There has been a vast increase in the advertising and promotion of less-healthy foods. Only 2% of advertising spend is on fresh fruit and vegetables, while 36% is on confectionery, snacks, desserts and soft drinks. We heard that food is an equalities issue. The poorest 20% of people would spend 45% of their family income to comply with the national dietary guidelines, rising to 70% if they have children. Therefore, they suffer the consequences in lower life expectancy and more years in poor health. On average, today’s British children consume less than half of the recommended amount of fruit and veg, but twice the amount of sugar. The committee looked at government action over the past 30 years while overweight and obesity have rocketed. There have been 14 obesity strategies, including about 700 policies. We asked researchers which ones had worked and which ones had not—and, if not, why not? The answer was that they failed because they were piecemeal, had voluntary rather than mandatory targets and relied on personal choice in a world where many people, because of the food environment and poverty, were not free to choose healthy food. The exception was the soft drinks industry levy, which was mandatory and led to a reduction in the amount of sugar in soft drinks, as manufacturers reformulated to avoid paying the tax. That was the point of it, of course. The committee therefore determined not to fall into the same traps, and that led to our main recommendation that the Government should develop a comprehensive and long-term strategic approach to the oversight and regulation of the food system, backed up by legislation. Despite Wes Streeting saying he would steamroller over the food industry if it did not improve, the Government are falling into the piecemeal and voluntary action trap again. Because of the public health obesity crisis, we recommended a shift to mandatory rather than voluntary policies, such as healthier food targets, reformulation taxes on sugar and salt and a laser focus on improving the diets of babies and children—but we are not seeing any of that in this response. We regulate the oil industry, the tobacco industry, alcohol, drugs and gambling, so why not food? It is not just about the safety of food but its quality and healthiness. I find it sad that this is despite the Government being elected on some very worthwhile promises—first, to have the healthiest generation of children ever. However, there is no commitment to reviewing the school food standards and the eligibility for and value of free school meals. There is no commitment to increase healthy start payments or to address the deluge of advertising of junk food to teenagers or the poor regulation of foods advertised for infants and toddlers. Will the Government start by implementing all the recommendations of the CMA report on formula milk, and then tackle the shocking and harmful content and misleading advertising and labelling of food for young children? Secondly, there is the Government’s health mission, to move from treatment to prevention. What has happened? The only tangible initiative on obesity has been treatment through expensive anti-obesity jabs—which would cripple the NHS budget according to NESTA—rather than primary prevention by ensuring everyone can get a healthy diet. I do not deny jabs can be appropriate and successful, but prevention is cheaper. Thirdly, the Government promised to save the NHS, where the cost of treating obesity-related illness is £18 billion per year. However, the Government seem content for the taxpayer to pay for the NHS to foot the bill for obesity, rather than the food industry that caused it. Fourthly, the new national food strategy shows no sign of getting to grips with the food industry, the sector that has caused the obesity crisis in the first place. Last week, the membership of the advisory board for this strategy was announced. Although there are several very good people on the board, the majority are from the food industry, and so is the secretariat—talk about the fox in the hen coop. It includes a major supermarket which refused to give the committee evidence in public, but instead offered us a private meeting with researchers that it funds—we rightly refused on transparency grounds. I wish the advisory board and the food strategy well, but I fear it is already in danger of going in the wrong direction. Finally, there is the Government’s growth objective. We have almost 3 million people of working age out of the workplace because of preventable illnesses caused by obesity. Sick people cannot work. They do not pay taxes, but they qualify for benefits, adding £4 billion per year to the Government’s existential economic problems, according to Frontier Economics. But it is not the patient’s fault; it is the fault of our broken food system, and the Government could fix it if they wanted to. Wes Streeting said recently, “Our sick society is holding back our economy, and that is why we should act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/24; col. 685.] The committee heartily agreed, because the annual economic cost of overweight and obesity is £98 billion. Professor Susan Jebb, chair of the FSA, has pointed out: “At a time when government is looking closely at public expenditure, it’s important to remember that costs of inaction far outweigh the investment needed to deliver a safe, healthier, and more sustainable supply of food for all”. The OBR has warned that many older workers are leaving the workforce because of obesity-related health issues. On the plus side, investors told us that there are billions of pounds waiting to be invested in companies that produce healthy food, but they wanted to see a clear direction of travel from government and a level playing field on regulation. The case for bold action is made, and it is in line with the Government’s own objectives and the public’s wishes. Some 68% of those polled support the committee’s recommendation for a sugar and salt reformulation tax. Indeed, our recommendations could have been written precisely to enable the Government to achieve their objectives—but that means that they must get a grip on the food industry, with measures well beyond the last Government’s proposed restrictions. And then there is lobbying. The committee recommended that the Government should establish their food policies independently of companies that rely mainly on sales of less healthy foods but should engage on implementation. After all, the Government’s objective should be public health, while the industry’s legitimate objective is making profit. In many cases, these two objectives are incompatible, but the Government have given a majority on the food strategy advisory board to the food industry. I ask the Minister: are the Government deliberately misrepresenting our recommendation, or are they responding to the vigorous lobbying of the industry? Those few food industry witnesses who were prepared to give evidence in public wanted one thing. Like the investors, they want a level playing field: regulation that applies to all industry players, so that the good guys doing the right thing are not undercut by the bad guys who do not care who pays for the health consequences, as long as it is not them. The Government say they will continue “to review the balance between mandatory and voluntary measures”, but the voluntary target of reducing sugar by 20% resulted in a measly 3.5% reduction. Are the Government serious about saving the NHS, improving children’s health and growing the economy? I am afraid I paint a very disappointing picture, and yet there is much to celebrate. So, here’s to those who produce and sell good healthy food, the food banks and redistributors, and the chefs and restaurants who serve good, healthy local food. Here’s to the food campaigners who never give up—and I hope they never will—and the parents and carers who try their best to feed their families healthy meals. Here’s to the health professionals who treat the consequences of bad diets, and here’s to the many witnesses who shared their experience and expertise with the committee. I thank all of them. As I come to the end of this rather depressing analysis, I would like to quote from page 17 of the Government’s response. They said that they “will consider whether further action is needed”. You bet it is, my Lords. I beg to move.

10:19:00

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her introduction. She has been a wonderful chair; she had to handle some difficulties—some internal tensions—but she managed to bring the committee through, and we produced a wonderful report. It is a bit like the one that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, previously produced, which again offered a whole range of recommendations, but not many of them were implemented at the time. I came to the committee with some reluctance—as the clerk, Stuart, knows—because I felt that I had spent many years, 20 years ago, doing so much work on Select Committees and yet so little was implemented. I came back reluctantly, but I have a very strong interest, as most of the House knows, in sugar addiction and how we should address that and try to change it. A week ago, I told the Minister that she would have a rough morning today. I start by expressing my gratitude to her, as well as to our Financial Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. In the October Budget the Government made a Statement to extend the range of the levy over a wider front than we had done previously. Not a great deal of publicity was given to it, but it was a move in the right direction. So our principal recommendation has been partially addressed already—but only partially. I suspect that it will not be addressed a great deal further on a wider basis, so we have to deal with the reality and the changing circumstances in which we find ourselves. The soft drink levy should be extended, but I know that the Government will run into great difficulties with that. If we get into a war with the Americans on trade, we will have to retaliate. I suggest to the Government that we should have tariffs of 25% on a few of the American products that are causing us difficulties—Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC and McDonald’s; you name them—they are responsible for the excess calories that we consume. That will probably not happen, but I hope that it will be borne in mind. There are issues on which the Government have given indications that they are trying to do something. They talked about weighing and measuring. We have had a scheme for weighing and measuring children since 2008. Notwithstanding that, we now find that our children are heavier. The Government have hinted recently that they intend to extend this to all adults, and that GPs will be required to weigh and measure people. I have no objection to that. We will have a great deal of data again, but I suspect that we will end up with an indication that people are still getting heavier—unless we take action. The action I suggest is that we look at what has been happening—or not happening—with children and at where there has been no follow-through with children identified as overweight. Here I thank the people in Blackpool who gave us a great two days; we got down to the nitty-gritty on some of these issues. We heard from the public health officials about the great difficulties they had when they identified children who were overweight; they had problems with parents who would not help. It is about how we find a way through to take action for children. We should spend some time looking at AI. Children use technology in a way that we do not, so that may be an opener for us. For example, noble Lords who look at ChatGPT or its alternatives will know what facilities and availabilities are coming online—what comes with AI is not all negative—and that could be used to find a way forward. We should try to bring people together in groups, in a way that we currently do not; we do it only with children, but maybe we should do it with adults. I come from the background of a 12-step programme. I was in real trouble with my health. At 40, I was told that, if I did not stop drinking, I would die. I joined a 12-step programme—it cost nothing—and I have been in it for 43 years. I am still here, at age 82.

Hear, hear!

That 12-step programme has helped me address the problems I had with my weight. I was overweight in my 60s, and when I got to the end of my 70s I was on the cusp of type 2 diabetes. I did a 12-step programme, entirely free of charge, and I got my weight back down and avoided having to take tablets and injections. I hope that we will look at the 12-step programmes and the available alternative programmes; they should be put through social prescribing, which we are failing to use to its full advantage. On the new food strategy, I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on happiness. We should involve the food and manufacturing industry, because, at the end of the day, it will still be there and we have to find ways to do business with it. My complaint is that we do not have one of the 10 big worldwide manufacturers on the committee. Why do we not have the people with whom we need to engage? For example, why have we not involved Nestlé, which spends so much time with children’s food and baby food? I ask the Minister to bring in even bigger players than those we have so far. The solution that the Government will eventually light on will be the anti-obesity drugs. It is the way that government invariably goes—I regret that, but I suspect that it will be the case. I am running out of time. Finally, we did not look at alcohol in our review. Alcohol is a major contributor to obesity, but we did not have the time to do that. I hope that, when we come back, we will spend some time looking at the anti-obesity drugs, which will cost a fortune and be in widespread use.

10:25:00

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Like him, I pay tribute to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; she has been such an excellent chair of a committee that was both very interesting and very worrying to serve on. Our committee covers food, diet and obesity, but today I will mainly focus on food, and food insecurity in particular. We know that food insecurity is really about the affordability and accessibility of food; if that is not present, it is the driver of unhealthy diets. I want to talk about our relationship as human beings with food. I am not talking about packets, tins, what comes out the freezer and cooking it; it is about eating and handling food, and it is sometimes about growing and shopping for food. It is part of the human condition—and I am talking here about real food. Chapter 7 of our report says: “Food insecurity is an urgent problem”. Of course, the poorer people are, the more that adds to this urgency. In the Government’s response to our report, particularly to chapter 7, they talk about the strategy that has already been mentioned today. Page 5 states: “In alignment with the health mission, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs … is developing an ambitious food strategy that will set the food system up for long-term success and will provide wide ranging improvements. The food strategy will help to improve our food system so it … provides healthier, more easily accessible food to tackle obesity and give children the best start in life, and help adults live longer healthier lives, building on the government’s existing work to tackle obesity and improve health”. Today, I would like to hear more about this strategy from the Minister. We have heard that the advisory board is in place. I would like to know a lot more about what its terms of reference are and how the Government will make sure that what they have asked the board to do is what comes out at the other end. It must be cross-departmental—because this whole subject involves more than just one department—but led by Defra. Now that the board is in place, the Government should know by now whether the strategy’s work will encourage more food to be grown and produced in the UK. Will it look at that? Is that one of the objectives of the strategy? I say that not out of some quirky, old-fashioned nationalism, but as a former Agriculture Minister, and somebody who represented a truly agricultural seat for 18 years, and as a former home economist who has taught many people, including adults, to cook. Will we have the availability of the ingredients and products from which we would all benefit if they were grown closer to home rather than on the other side of the world? Will this strategy encourage both children and adult communities to grow the food they eat? Will allotments, for example, be protected from land to build on? If this is cross-departmental, are we actually going to start engaging the public with the very food they need throughout the course of their lives? We know that many schools, for example, support gardening and growing things, which help to introduce children in a most positive way to food that will be part of their lives. Will this strategy improve the population’s understanding of basic nutrients in food so that people know what to look for when they are shopping? Will they understand the labelling? All these things are small in their way, but they contribute to the way in which people address and see the food that appears in their kitchens. I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask this: is the teaching of cookery going to be improved in schools? In a former existence—as the president of the Institute of Home Economics—I campaigned very hard for many years with Governments of all persuasions to encourage this basic science in schools. It is a science and it is so essential. Will the strategy mean that from childhood to adulthood the population’s relationship with food improves to the extent that it once again becomes an essential life skill that is enjoyable, healthy and accessible? If the Minister cannot say exactly what she thinks will come out at the end of this strategy, can she at least share the timescale with us? The word “soon” was used in the Government’s January response to our report. How soon is “soon”? How will the strategy be monitored? Who will do this? Will any legislation needed at the outturn be given priority for parliamentary time? There are recommendations for legislation in our report, but if a recommendation for legislation comes from the strategy, will that be given priority? I wish the Minister well with this, and I know she will be listening to what we have to say today.

10:32:00

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for being an excellent chair of this Select Committee inquiry and for her outstanding introduction to this debate. I also express thanks to our specialist adviser, Professor Martin White from Cambridge University, who kept us on the straight and narrow, as well as our clerk and policy analyst. I declare two interests. First, I am the chair of the World Cancer Research Fund’s global expert panel, which reviews the scientific evidence for links between diet, obesity and cancer risk. Secondly, I am a scientific adviser to Marks & Spencer. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am puzzled. The Government agree with our diagnosis of the problem. They say in their response to our report that people are eating too much calorie-dense, highly palatable food, commonly known as HFSS—high in fat, salt and sugar, or junk food for short—and, as a result, obesity rates have rocketed in recent decades. They go on to say that this rise in obesity has adverse effects on health, well-being and the economy. They also say there is a need to reshape the food environment, which has been an important causal factor for the rise in obesity. Having read these introductory paragraphs of the Government’s response, I was ready to enjoy learning that, having agreed with our diagnosis, they also agree with our proposed solutions. These solutions were based on many months of hard graft and more than 1,000 pages of written evidence from experts. Instead, the Government, as we have already heard, rejected nearly all our recommendations, as indeed they rejected the recommendations of the inquiry I chaired a few years ago on food poverty, health and the environment. There were—as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned—some honourable exceptions. These included the policies inherited from the previous Government on restrictions on the promotion and advertising of junk food, as well as the welcome uprating of the soft drinks industry levy announced in the Autumn Budget. Apart from those two, we got some rather vague hand-waving about the health mission of prevention instead of treatment and the new Defra-led food strategy. For nearly all our recommendations, we got answers such as, “It’s all terribly complicated. We will review, consider and consult. We have to carefully consider the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures”. This is, to say the least, disappointing. There has been plenty of review, including in our inquiry, and there is no need for further paralysis by analysis. There is no need to further consider the balance of voluntary and mandatory measures. Simply read paragraph 62 of our report, where we refer to research from Cambridge University showing that about 700 policies to tackle obesity have failed because they were based on individual responsibility and voluntary measures. Does the Minister disagree with the conclusions of this Cambridge University research? If so, why? Perhaps the Government might look at the lessons learned from smoking. In the middle of the last century, over 80% of adult males and over 40% of adult females smoked. Today, under 12% of adults smoke. This dramatic shift has not been driven by voluntary measures and individual responsibility; it has come about through a combination of legislation, taxation and education. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, announced this week, will further tighten the regulatory screw. I know there are important differences between smoking and overeating, but both have major impacts on public health, so why not apply a similar logic to both problems? Given that they have not accepted our recipe for change, what is the Government’s plan? I could go on at great length, but a simple, straightforward answer to this question would be most welcome. However, before I finish, I want to say a few words about ultra-processed food. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, mentioned, there were some disagreements in our committee, and our chair handled those disagreements very skilfully. One of them was about whether UPF—ultra-processed food—is dangerous, or whether it is largely a red herring. The committee was divided on this, and I was on the red herring end of the spectrum. Why? There are three reasons. First, as Chris van Tulleken and others told us, UPF is not suitable as a policy tool, not least because experts often disagree when they try to apply it to individual foods. In one study we were referred to, a panel of experts agreed on only four out of 231 foods they were asked to classify as UPF or not. Secondly, there is no convincing scientific evidence to show that processing, as opposed to the content of food, is harmful to human health—of course, that evidence base may change. Thirdly, most UPF is also HFSS. The foods that are deemed to be UPF but not HFSS, according to some experts, include things such as oat milk, vegan sausages, wholemeal bread from the supermarket and pre-packed cooked vegetables. Do we really want to suggest to the public that these foods are dangerous to eat? No, let us concentrate on HFSS, where the evidence for harm is robust and the definition is already used in regulation.

10:38:00

My Lords it was a privilege to serve on the committee. I thank our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, Professor Martin White, our clerk Stuart Stoner and the whole team. Of the many committee reports in which I have been involved, this one is unique. None has been so welcome and reported on outside this House yet received such a negative response from the Government. We made several important recommendations for a comprehensive policy, but I want to focus most of my remarks on ultra-processed foods. Our report draws attention to the difficulties encountered by the concept and classification of UPFs, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just said. We noted that some processed foods, particularly the ultra-processed ones, are more harmful than others, but it is hard to know which. Buying food that is good for you is often difficult and requires time, especially for those on low incomes. Added to this, there is a huge amount of confusion and misinformation promulgated by the food manufacturers. Generally, the more healthy and good the packet tells you the food is, the more cautious you need to be. Most food is processed to some degree; it is the amount of processing that is relevant to how much of a health risk it can be. What we as consumers need to know is the damage that that process can do to food. It can be used to include additives that are non-culinary ingredients, such as emulsifiers. One should try to avoid food with those in them, so reading the label is a necessity even if one does not understand what all those unintelligible values mean. Processing can alter the palatability of foods. Many foods are processed to make them hyperpalatable, which encourages us to buy and eat more of them, but they are bad for us. Processing the food can also alter the energy intake of the food in question. Understanding the combination of the effect of the additives, the palatability and the energy intake is critical to assessing the health risk. The ZOE science team, led by Professor Tim Spector, together with Dr Federica Amati, ZOE’s head nutritionist and nutrition topic lead at Imperial College London Faculty of Medicine, found that 38% of the foods they analysed were both energy-dense and hyperpalatable. This reinforces our call for clearer, more accessible information about making healthier choices when buying processed food. So, my noble friend Lady Browning will welcome the news announced this morning of the development of ZOE’s processed food risk scale, which is currently being tested and validated. It is very good news for us consumers. It will help us navigate the often confusing landscape of processed and ultra-processed foods to better understand the health risks associated with their consumption. The plan for the future of this new tool is that by photographing the packet of food using an app, within seconds one will know whether there is no health risk or whether there is a low, medium or high risk. That will start to enable us consumers to choose a better diet. Thank goodness for those in the private sector who are doing something to help, because the Government are doing very little. Nor are the food manufacturers. They did not want to be asked difficult questions by the committee, so they refused to attend. Ms Betts, chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation, responded to our reports by saying that if UPF or processing raised concerns, “industry would of course act quickly”. My response to her is, “Pull the other one: it’s got bells on”. Evidence there is aplenty, and there has been even more since the publication of our report. Most of the industry has done the bare minimum. Let there be no misunderstanding: the food manufacturers are in it for profit, and ultra-processed food is the source of the biggest profits. Like the tobacco industry, they will fight all the way to delay change, regardless of whatever damage is done to our health in the process. The Minister tells us that a smoke-free UK is a pillar of the Government’s health mission to help people stay healthier for longer and forms part of their plan for change, focusing on the crucial role prevention can play in cutting waiting lists and making the NHS fit for the future. Our report records that: “Obesity has been predicted to overtake smoking as the main preventable cause of cancer in women by 2043”. The total annual economic cost to the UK of overweight and obesity is £98 billion. That is nearly 4% of GDP and about 350% more than tobacco costs us. If stopping smoking is a key pillar of the Government’s health mission, how much more important is a good, affordable diet and reducing obesity? That should be a tower of strength to the Government. The Secretary of State has abdicated the driver’s seat on the steamroller, which, when in opposition, he said he would drive over the food industry, which was blocking reforms. He is now the man busily waving the green flag at it. The Government are neglecting us all, but in particular pregnant women, infants and children.

10:44:00

My Lords, I too am grateful to the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, which wrote this report. It is excellent, but it paints a picture that this country has a real problem with food. As has already been stated today, the prevalence of cheap, unhealthy foods filled with sugar, salt and fat has fuelled an obesity epidemic and causes real damage to individuals’ health and to the NHS. According to a Frontier Economics report, obesity-related illness costs £6.5 billion a year, so it also damages the UK economy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, there have been over 700 proposed policies to tackle this issue over the years since 1992, but none have worked. Healthy food has become a luxury for many in this country, something that some people simply cannot afford. There is a very real and increasing health gap between the richest and the poorest. We have relied on the good faith of the food industry for far too long—that it will voluntarily reformulate its products—and we have told people they must eat healthier. But this report lays bare our failings and demands a radical shift in our policy. We simply must change the food landscape, encourage companies to produce healthier food, focus on children, and ensure that all are able to access a healthy diet. The levy on sugary drinks caused sizeable reductions in sugar levels and had a greater effect on the health of the nation than a voluntary measure could possibly have achieved, so I add my voice to the mandatory regulations lobby. Mandatory reformulations will create a level playing field, encourage all companies to commit to producing healthier food and can only be good for all of us, including the industry. But for many people in this country, eating healthily is simply not an option. I fear it would really be very problematic to reform the food industry, potentially increasing the price of unhealthy food, without making healthier alternatives available to all. I hope that the Government’s future food strategy will go some way to telling us how they intend to deal with that. But let me talk about children in the time I have left. I welcome the Government’s commitment to maternal and infant health, as well as the detailed nutritional guidance recently published by NICE; it will undoubtedly help families provide their children with a balanced and healthy diet. But advice only goes so far. As this report highlights, there is incontrovertible evidence that children starting reception in more deprived areas are twice as likely to be obese as children from the least deprived areas. Families in poverty face real difficulties accessing enough healthy food for their children to meet the advised nutritional guidance on fruit and veg. It is expensive. Many schoolchildren face food insecurity. I have many tales from my time as an MP illustrating just how desperate it can be, with children taking it in turns to eat on school nights. Families who live in temporary accommodation—some in hotels—have simply no access to cookers, sinks and fridges; while others who have access to fridges and cookers may not have cooking equipment because they had to relinquish it in their many moves through temporary accommodation, and simply had no space to store it. Holidays can also be a food and financial nightmare, so I was absolutely delighted to see the Government commit to extending the holiday activities and food programme for another year; it is an absolute lifeline for so many families. I hope that the spending review will provide multi-year guaranteed funding for the programme. Wealth inequalities in this country have grown over the last decade. Some 24% of schoolchildren are now eligible for free school meals, and while the numbers eligible increased, government spending lagged behind inflation. Since 2014, there has been a 17% real-terms cut in funding for free school meals. The report states that current funding results in many schools being unable to meet the Government’s food standards or provide a healthy meal to children. It details cases of recipients of free school meals being able to afford only a fried or battered chicken in a flimsy wrap or a white bun—no sauce, no salad, no fruit. Without proper enforcement, the school food standards are not worth the paper they are written on. Sharon Hodgson MP, a good friend of mine, has been an unremitting campaigner for universal free school meals. She believes that free school meals would be a significant answer to some of the issues in this report, and she is absolutely right. They can be a game changer, but only when done right. There is no incentive for caterers to serve healthy, nutritious and tasty food at lunchtime, especially when cost pressures mean that the quality and portions of the food are being compromised. There is so much more to be said, and I have run out of time, but I absolutely know that this Government have the will, the talent and the drive to meet the health challenges of inequalities, to try and reform our food environment and tackle the root causes of obesity and poverty. I look forward to the committee’s further reports in the future.

10:50:00

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the chair and all the committee members on their excellent report. But while the report is strong, the Government’s response is weak. Despite years of proposals, successive Governments have failed to tackle obesity. In fact, the problem has got worse and it is our most vulnerable, poorer families and children who are paying the price, as many noble Lords have said before me. Childhood obesity is not just a phase. Children who are obese have an 80% chance of remaining overweight or obese as adults. That is a lifetime of preventable illnesses. We owe our children a healthier and better start in life. Today, over one in five children in England are overweight or obese when they start primary school. By the time they leave, that is one in three. These are not just numbers; they are our children’s lives. In the UK, we have among the highest obesity rates in the developed world: only the USA and Brazil outstrip us. In France, the difference is stark. There, food is something to be cherished. Schools offer children a proper meal—a three-course meal with fruits and vegetables. Families still cook from scratch, shop for fresh ingredients and eat together at set times. Meals are moments of connection and enjoyment, not something consumed on the go in front of a screen. When I first arrived in the UK, I was shocked to see people eating chocolate bars at their desk in the morning, sipping sugary drinks on public transport and snacking constantly without sitting down to enjoy a meal. People often ask me: “How do you manage to keep your weight down?” The truth is simple. I was raised to eat well. My parents taught me to rely on fruits and vegetables, not tinned and ultra-processed foods. My parents were vegetarians, and we sat at meals around a table. I was taught to chew before I swallowed. The root cause of obesity is clear. It is not just the quantity—it is also what we eat and how we eat it. This is not about blaming individuals, but about acknowledging that our food system is broken. As the report highlights, obesity is not just a health issue. It is driving chronic illness, disability and economic hardship. It costs the NHS over £19 billion a year, and the wider economy even more, yet the Government’s response lacks ambition and urgency. It leans heavily on voluntary measures, with no serious regulatory levers, but we need a national food strategy that puts health first. We also need to change our food culture and support local markets. In France, local markets offer fresh products from the region. In every city and village, you have markets. Even in Paris, you have 80 street markets, and they are operating three days a week. An apple is not more expensive than a bar of chocolate, but it is far more nutritious, with fewer calories, so why not support our farmers to bring their products directly to shops, as they do in France? Prevention alone is no longer enough. We must also invest in weight services and therapies such as GLP—but, as noble Lords have mentioned before, although that may be helpful in extreme cases, we do not know the long-term effects and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, it is still a very expensive way to treat people. Is it not better to concentrate on food and what we eat, and to educate? Fast food makes you hungry; it does not quench your hunger. It is time to tackle junk food. Will the Minister tell this House what steps her Government will take to support our farmers and work with them to improve our children’s well-being? Instead of imposing inheritance tax, would it not be better to work with farmers to tackle this issue?

10:56:00

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on both her extremely powerful speech and her excellent chairing of the committee. It was a genuine pleasure to serve on that committee and to learn a lot. Anybody who knows my noble friend will know that she is both firm and fair as a chair; she also has a tremendous grasp of the detail. She has made some extremely powerful points this morning and I hope that the Minister will respond in a more encouraging way than appeared evident in the official and hugely disappointing government response to this report. I also place on record my personal thanks to the secretariat of the committee, in particular to Stuart and Lucy, who were truly exceptional. As a child of the 1970s and a teenager of the 1980s growing up in Scotland, I grew up through a revolution in food production in this country. Growing up in the 1970s, I remember food as predominantly homemade and wholesome, if slightly bland. It was an era, as a dear friend of mine used to say, when we were blessed with “freedom from choice.” By the time I was at high school in the 1980s, industrially produced foods and ready meals were beginning to appear, along with the invention of the domestic microwave. Multinational fast-food outlets began to multiply in our cities. As a student, I clearly remember always feeling strangely dissatisfied after eating a McDonald’s burger. Although it was cheap, it always left me feeling hungry afterwards and immediately wanting another. At that time, I was unaware that industrial research had specifically and quite deliberately produced that effect, so that customers like me consumed more. Following my time on this committee, I now understand that what I was experiencing as a student is called hyper-palatability. But whereas in the 1970s and 1980s, ultra-processed food might have been an occasional treat, nowadays, tragically, in some parts of the UK, it makes up to 80% of people’s diets. We are all faced with an enormous choice of food outlets, from takeaways to supermarkets, Deliveroo and Uber Eats. Children, in particular, are bombarded daily by food offers and advertising encouraging them to buy and eat much more than they need. This food revolution has had a profound impact on children. They have grown up with an abundance of artificial and industrially produced foods, and some have little or no experience of natural or home-cooked food. The statistics are stark and becoming worse. In the UK, over 20% of children are already too heavy and around 10% are already obese when they start primary school. As the Food Foundation’s most recent report states, children in the most deprived fifth of the population are over twice as likely to be living with obesity as those in the least deprived fifth by their first year of school. A few weeks ago, on a four-hour train journey back from Scotland, I watched as a mother fed her toddler three little plastic sachets of fruit puree. Misleadingly, these fruit sachets are marketed as a health product. The mother no doubt thought that she was giving her child a healthy option, but just one of those sachets contains the recommended daily allowance of sugar for an adult. It is surely wrong that our shops can sell baby foods and drinks that are packed full of sugar but have no traffic light warning or label on them. The same applies to so-called follow-on and growing-up milk. For example, a one or two year-old consuming Alpro soya growing-up milk—which states on the pack that it is low in sugars—would typically be consuming over three times the recommended maximum total daily sugars intake from that product alone. Does the Minister not agree that warning labels about sugar content on children’s food products are urgently needed? The noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, made the case so very powerfully that provision of a healthy school meal in early years can have an extremely positive impact on behaviour and concentration in class. It can also encourage healthy eating and good nutrition habits at a young age. A healthy and nutritious hot meal is nearly always going to be healthier than a packed-lunch option, which is often full of ultra-processed products. A friend’s nine year-old daughter, Livia, recently told me that she was deeply concerned by what her schoolmates were eating on a daily basis. During the public hearings for this committee, we heard the experiences of many young people; they really do care about these issues. There have been rumours surrounding cuts in the provision of school meals. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s plan regarding school meals. The Government’s response, or lack of response, to the very concrete and constructive suggestions on children, young people, infants and school meals in chapters 6 and 7 of this report are deeply disappointing. Investing in a healthy start for our children makes sound economic sense, as other noble Lords have said. Robert Boyle, a paediatrician from Imperial College, says that obesity is the greatest health crisis on the planet and that it often starts with childhood. We need to take firm action now.

11:02:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I agree with every word that she said. I too had the great pleasure of being on the committee that was expertly chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It genuinely felt like being on a jury, with 12 members, evidence being shown and someone taking evidence and notes, which our clerks did superbly. At the end of it, I think we were all informed and pretty much facing the same direction. Our verdict was straightforward. I will use my few minutes to talk about one of our recommendations—the extent to which the food industry is involved in the policy of food at the moment. Take, for instance, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition—SACN. It is the main adviser to the Government on food policy and, if you think it is unbiased, you would be wrong. Of the 16 members of SACN, 14 of them directly or indirectly take money from the food industry. They might brush it aside by saying, “I declare my interests”, but, if you take money, it changes minds. SACN’s statement on ultra-processed food concluded that the associations between higher UPF consumption and adverse health outcomes was “concerning”. It is well known that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I argued a bit about this in the committee. However, the noble Lord is highly respected, so I urge him to look at the overwhelming weight of evidence and stop quibbling at the edges about whether this is HFSS or UPF. The overwhelming body of evidence is that what we and our children are eating is bad for us and is making us fat and ill. We should all combine forces to understand that simple fact and park the quarrels. Food policy must always be made without the industry being in the room, because we have two different aims. They want to make money; we want to make people well. It is very interesting to note that when George Osborne imposed the sugar tax, he made it completely on his own—not literally but with an incredibly tight, tiny team of civil servants and advisers. He then went out and told the industry, which got on with it. Like many others, I have been interested this week to see the announcement of the newly created advisory board. There are 16 members and seven represent one or other face of big food. The press release states that this board will help to set the ambition, but the ambition of McCain Foods is to sell a lot more chips. Indeed, one of the shocking things that we heard on our committee came from one of the young people on Bite Back: when he buys a bus ticket to get to school, on the reverse of the ticket it offers free chips if he comes into McDonald’s with it. Therefore, I cannot believe that McCain Foods is really after our help. Yes, it has some sterling people: Anna Taylor, who is CEO of the Food Foundation; Susan Jebb; Professor Chris Whitty; and Ravi Gurumurthy from Nesta. I am glad that they are there, but can they hold the line against the lobbying might of Greencore, Sofina Foods, Kerry Group, McCain Foods, Sainsbury’s, Cranswick, Bidcorp Group? A line on Bidcorp Group’s website says that: “Bidfood has identified many opportunities for value-add light processing and bespoke manufacture to make our customers’ lives easier”. Is that what we want in our food strategy? Of course, we must wait and see, but the industry must not be allowed to health-wash itself by sitting alongside people such as Anna. Alongside the board, we have the Food and Drink Federation, which plays a very shadowy role within this setup. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and I—who tabled the Motion for this committee and were so pleased when we got it and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—went to a meeting where the Food and Drink Federation unveiled its new strategy. I do know how much this will be involved in the food strategy, but its idea was that all healthy foods across the country should have a new label: “Feel Better”. This could be plastered on to every packet of salad, brown rice or unprocessed meat. The British public would then happily change their ways. It would be a real win for the industry, because it would not have to label anything that is not quite so good. The federation is a famed lobbyist for big food and I think it offered to come before our committee. However, it is worth the Food and Drink Federation and us noting that investors have a duty to cut the systemic risks in their systems. Yesterday I was talking to Sophie Lawrence of Greenbank. She told me that the Investor Coalition on Food Policy is calling for greater transparency around lobbying activities by the food industry. She said that during the previous Government, from January 2022 to June 2024, Ministers at Defra met with food businesses and their trade associations 1,408 times. That is 40 times more than they met with the food NGOs and people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who might want to put the results of her report before them. The food strategy is coming and we look forward to it, but what was wrong with the strategy that Henry Dimbleby wrote? It seemed an excellent strategy. When it was published, the Government only committed to doing four of its 14 recommendations, which have been delayed and forgotten. As all noble Lords have said, the response to our report has been equally weak. I also recommend that when the Minister steps forward to help with food strategy, she spends some time talking to the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, which is setting up citizens’ juries. There is no point in food policy being made if it does not change how things happen on the street. Wherever you live, however much you earn, whether you are disabled or not, you want to be able to walk to a shop that provides healthy, affordable food for you and your family. If you end up in a food desert, that will not work. People want this to happen. All the polling shows that people really care. They are heartbroken by the quality of some school meals and driven to despair by the endless adverts.

11:09:00

My Lords, many in this Chamber will have been involved in the highly competitive process of the ad hoc Select Committees. Most applicants are disappointed, so the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and I were thrilled when our proposal got over the line. Both she and I had become increasingly concerned about the unsustainable rise in obesity, especially in children. Indeed, I chaired a Centre for Social Justice report on childhood obesity in 2017, which called for urgent government action, and since then there have been numerous other reports, including the Government-commissioned National Food Strategy, led so ably by Henry Dimbleby; and yet there was almost no action as the situation deteriorated further. That was a wake-up call for me and we hope that this report debated today will wake up others, especially the Government. I remember the first meeting, where we all agreed that this must not be yet another committee which produces yet another report which languishes on the shelves gathering dust, or the digital equivalent. We were ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who not only chaired with distinction and tenacity but has continued to campaign vigorously at every possible opportunity. I remember her saying it was the most important work she had undertaken in nearly 25 years in the Lords, and she has been like a terrier since. Indeed, I am tempted to say that I agree with every word and just sit down. I too would like to pay tribute to the committee staff. All were excellent, but we were especially lucky with our clerk, Stuart Stoner; Lucy the policy analyst and drafter of the report; and our specialist adviser, Professor Martin White, a leading expert in the field. The evidence sessions were outstanding and illuminating for many, particularly the evidence from Dr Chris van Tulleken and Henry Dimbleby, who came as early witnesses. I had read both their books and knew what to expect, especially with regard to ultra-processed food, but other members of the committee were horrified as it dawned on them how broken the state of our food system is. As a committee, we did our part: we signed off a hard-hitting, evidence-based report. I do not think our expectations about the Government’s response were unrealistic, but to say that we have been underwhelmed and disappointed would be an understatement. Quite frankly, just acknowledging the issues and committing to seeing through some of the existing policies was not really good enough. As we pointed out, the need for further research into ultra processed foods must not be an excuse for inaction; and yet, that appears to be the position. I believe the Government will regret this lack of urgency, as have many former Ministers in positions of responsibility before them. Dr Dolly van Tulleken and Henry Dimbleby’s most recent publication, Nourishing Britain: a Political Manual for Improving the Nation’s Health, is another useful report documenting the wisdom of three former Prime Ministers, one Deputy Prime Minister, 10 former Health Secretaries and six other former and serving politicians, all of whom have dealt with the vexed politics of obesity, food and health. All 20 interviewees agreed that the Government had not done enough to tackle the problems of food-related ill-health. Many expressed personal regret that they had not done more during their own time in power. Those who did the most were immensely proud of their policies. All the politicians knew that it was a growing problem and many had tried to avert it. As we have noted, since the early 1990s, Governments of all political hues have published 14 obesity strategies, containing almost 700 individual policy suggestions, and in that time, the proportion of adults living with obesity has doubled. The reasons behind this are clearly set out in the pamphlet, which I recommend to the Minister; but, essentially, politics got in the way of policy. There is no room to let this happen today, and nor do you have to; the politics can work. Nourishing Britain contains some excellent examples of how Ministers made the politics work for some of the boldest policies to date, including the soft drinks industry levy. The insights provided by those who have been at the sharp end are fascinating. Alan Johnson said: “We took the piss out of David Cameron, one of his early PMQs, he was new. He was up against Tony Blair and he said something about, it’s wrong that chocolate should be near the tills … He was absolutely right”. Alan Johnson also admitted: “We were pondering on [a sugar tax], but we were never really bold enough to do it”. Boris Johnson pointed out that “one pound in every three of government spending is on the NHS and there’s no doubt at all that people’s life expectancy has been greatly shortened by obesity”. He also explained that his adviser told him not to touch the issue—something which he thought was short-sighted. As Tony Blair told them: “Take bold, innovative steps, including shifting the focus of the NHS from cure to prevention, and stay committed to building a healthier, more resilient Britain as the health of our people is the foundation of our future prosperity”. As the first Labour Government since then, I ask the Minister to heed these words. All the evidence shows that the public want the Government to act. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission recently published its Citizen Manifesto, calling for courageous political leadership and for government to move fast and fix things. Like the interviewees who regretted their lack of boldness and bravery, I am sure she and the Secretary of State will not want to look back and think, in George Osborne’s words: “What’s the point of occupying Number 11 Downing Street, or indeed Number 10 Downing Street if you’re not doing something with it?”

11:15:00

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow my noble friend Lady Jenkin who has been talking on these issues way before it became so fashionable and drew me into this debate in the first place. I would like to say thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and all those who sat on this committee, who have done an incredible job and made a very persuasive case. I also draw attention to my role as adviser to Oviva, a company that provides treatment to those with obesity, and the role of my wife, who is a non-executive director of Tesco, the British retailer. Others have spoken about the impact of obesity on our health, including the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lady Meyer. As a moment of personal testimony, I saw how we, as a country, suffered during the pandemic because 64% of adults were carrying too much weight and their bodies were weakened and could not fight the virus properly. The ONS study on obesity and mortality found emphatic evidence that the risk of death from coronavirus was double for those who had obesity. That is true in other realms of health and it is an observation that plays out in every hospital, every GP surgery and every morgue in the country, every day of the week. Others, including the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Caithness have talked about how all this damages our economy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming; I will not go over it all, but I will mention the correspondence I had with the OBR—emphatic and clear arbiters of our future financial security. It wrote that the rising tide of chronic health conditions linked to obesity is increasing the years that people spend in ill-health, and that is having a material impact on our ability to sustain the national debt. The Army cannot recruit fit soldiers; our businesses cannot find a fit workforce; and our communities are struggling to cope with obesity-related poor health—we simply cannot go on like this. The response from the Government is particularly disappointing given that the political mood on this issue has completely changed. Polling evidence overwhelmingly points to strong support for government interventions. National newspapers have become health conscious, campaigning on issues such as fast food outlets near schools. Major civic organisations like children’s charities and the health champions are clamouring for action. Directors for public health, local authority chiefs and NHS chiefs published compelling evidence of harm, thoughtful recommendations for change and alarm about the cost of exciting but expensive obesity treatments. Countries such as Norway, Portugal, Mexico, Canada and Chile are leading the way by clamping down on junk food advertising and, most strikingly, in America, the popular End Chronic Disease movement has expressed popular anger towards the junk food industry. That was seen in the influence of Robert Kennedy on the presidential election. His appointment at Secretary of State for Health, while quite a strange event in world history, has shown how popular anger about our declining health is boiling over into the mainstream. We have reached a point where the junk food industry can no longer be regarded as a constructive contributor to our national interest, or a benign employer of our people, or a supplier of nutritious sustenance to feed our people. Companies such as Nestlé, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, Mars, Ferrero and others are making billions of pounds of profits. Their CEOs make tens of millions of pounds each year. Meanwhile, our children face a life of poor health and addiction; the NHS is running nearly 100 child obesity clinics, at great expense; and the UK workforce is quitting employment because of the cardiovascular, MSK and consequential mental health problems associated with obesity. The junk food giants should be regarded as a leech on our public finances; free riders that are not paying for the externalities that they create; and a threat to both our national security and our public finances. That is why the Government’s response is so disappointing. It calls for “co-ordination and collaboration”, which they say is essential. I just do not agree. We need hard, regulatory guard-rails. We need to put health promotion at the centre of the Food Standards Agency priorities. We need fiscal intervention, starting with the sugar tax. We need a monopoly investigation by the CMA. We need to start taking the junk food industry out of the conversation, as we have done with the tobacco industry and should do with the pornography industry. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on that really resonated. If we have learned anything, it is that the micro-intervention approach does not work. It did not work with tobacco, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said. Some 80 years after it was proven that cigarettes kill, 13% of the country still smokes. The micro-intervention approach does not work for businesses, which have a fiduciary obligation to maximise profits. As a result, they waste huge amounts of shareholder value and creative energy battling fines and red tape. It is not working for our NHS, our economy or our national security. Instead, we need a clear and emphatic approach that protects the consumer and allows the industry to survive. Collaboration with today’s junk food industry just will not get us there.

11:20:00

My Lords, I listened to all the oral evidence to this inquiry while making it into a podcast. It was shocking, depressing and inspiring. We have already heard the shocking part: the statistics—the numbers of people suffering, the cost to the NHS and the cost to the economy of diet-related illnesses keeping people out of work. The depressing part of the evidence was hearing about our repeated failure to even slow down the train wreck. The reason we have an obesity problem now compared with 40 years ago is that food has changed—not us, and not our willpower or our genetics. The challenge, then, is how we reduce the amount of unhealthy food and drink that we all consume. That is how we will eliminate these diet-related illnesses. However, the aims of the Government’s food strategy—noble Lords can read them—do not mention reducing unhealthy food in our diets at all, only making healthy foods more affordable and accessible. This in itself will not make the difference that we need to see. It is pretty clear what healthy food and drink look like. People can try to split hairs and draw lines, but we all know it: whole foods, variety, minimal processing, less meat, and lower salt, fat and sugar. And we all know what unhealthy food looks like. Why are we not eating the good stuff, and instead eating the bad stuff? In most of our day-to-day lives, we do not have the time, money or resources to cook with fresh, whole-food ingredients for every meal of every day. The inquiry heard how kitchen equipment, the cost of heating an oven, and the space for food storage and preparation are prohibitive to many, as well as how quickly most fresh ingredients and freshly made foods go off, risking expense and waste. The industrial food chain has grown into this space, producing ready-to-eat, long-life foods at affordable prices. However, these are not just convenient versions of traditional dishes; they are designed to be very tasty—we all know that—but they are also mostly very unhealthy. Their design is around palatability, not nutrition, and profitability. Being profitable, they are marketed to us aggressively. The more time-poor or financially poor that you are, the more they are marketed to you. The impact of industrialised food on our health sits alongside the terrible impact on the environment, animal welfare and farmers’ livelihoods. Surely, then, the Government’s food strategy should be asking how we can efficiently produce and distribute freshly made meals, ideally from mainly British-grown ingredients, to replace as much as possible of the industrial stuff. From listening to the evidence to the inquiry, I know where I would start. Where do a known number of people eat, every day, all in one place, allowing a relatively easy calculation of how much fresh food needs to be prepared, minimising wastage and transport? It is in schools—where this is very much needed. The committee heard not only that nearly one in four of our children are clinically obese by the age of 10 but that they are stunted by malnutrition—UK children are up to 9 centimetres shorter than their peers in northern and eastern Europe. Here we come to where the committee evidence was inspiring. We heard about local schemes, where schools hosted kitchens that supplied freshly prepared, freshly cooked, healthy meals for all the children—100% attendance—as well as selling to parents and the local community, meaning that they could do all this within current authority finances. There is evidence that this reduces obesity. There are myriad other innovative ways to get fresh produce from our farms to our forks, with as little in between as possible. This is the sort of thinking and supply that small, local businesses and communities excel at. The committee heard about many. However, last week, my depression returned. The Government announced the advisory board for its food strategy—the strategy that does not mention reducing unhealthy food. On the board is one solitary farmer; there is no one who cooks fresh food, no one who is an expert in school meal provision, and not even a biodiversity and conservation expert, even though one of the stated aims of the strategy is to work out how to reduce the impacts of our food system on the environment. Another of the aims is economic growth. Economic growth could mean the encouragement of innovative local and community SMEs and family farms—British businesses that employ locally and supply locally. But no: the board is almost all made up of representatives of multinational industrial foodstuff manufacturers and retailers, as is its secretariat—the people whose businesses are the antithesis of what a healthy food strategy needs. The strategy says that it aims to ensure that “our largest manufacturing sector can realise its potential for economic growth”. I emphasise “manufacturing”. That is how this Government see food: not in terms of growing, preparing, cooking, health or the environment, but manufacturing. That is the sort of thinking that has caused successive Governments to fail the citizens of the UK and fail to stop the ever-increasing illnesses from poor food. I therefore have some questions for the Minister. Why does the government strategy not consider reducing unhealthy food in our diet a priority? If it does, why does it not state that? How were the members of the advisory group chosen? Why is there no representation in the group of those who specialise in cooking or supplying food made from fresh ingredients? Why is there no expert in biodiversity in the group, despite that being a stated priority? Will the minutes of its meetings be made publicly available? Will those contain agreements on key targets to be reached on reducing diet-related health problems, as well as on biodiversity, so that we can be sure that the strategy is focused on the outcomes that we all want to see? I end with a plea: please listen back to the evidence given to this inquiry. Do not let all those inspiring people down by making the same mistakes that we have made, decade after decade, by not tackling the real problem: industrialised food.

11:27:00

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I worked for Mars for 12 years and I have a pension. I am conscious that a lot of the discussion today is about food processes, not food producers, but I have spotted that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, is speaking later, so I expect that she may cover the issue of food production. One thing that struck me about this report is that it seems that the only way to try to get change is through regulation, taxes and strategies. I can genuinely say that, in the three different roles that I held at Cabinet level, particularly when I was at DWP, we worked with the Department of Health and Defra on the food strategy. We worked on increasing Healthy Start, and, when people asked for it to be online, we got the applications online. This is all about how we try to develop habits and, as has already been referred to today, starting young is a key element of that. That can be in schools, but I would go further. Thinking of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown said, there is a lot here for local government. That is where the health workers are and it has responsibility for planning permission, which was further strengthened last December—a key driver is not necessarily what happens at home, but what you purchase, particularly from fast food outlets. That is really where a lot of the focus should increasingly be. To follow on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, said, I remember that, as a student, I used to go down from my halls of residence to the Berwick Street Market every Saturday at 5 am to get the cheap veg. The question is how councils can promote markets, and not just, dare I say it, the niche chichi farmers’ markets. Perhaps councils can do innovative things, such as removing business rates or similar, in order to try to get that fresh food habit as part of a regular shop, with people not just travelling to the supermarket. One thing that the report frequently refers to is the 2021 national food strategy. I know that Henry Dimbleby was commissioned by Michael Gove to provide evidence to it. It somewhat mushroomed and went way beyond its remit and people referred to it as the “national food strategy”. I should point out that it was never adopted by the Government. However, it brought out a lot of important issues—I appreciate that Henry is not only charming but indeed passionate about this particular interest—that built on the work he had done in improving school meal standards and his other work. A strategy was produced in June 2022 and is now to be updated. In thinking about processes, one thing your Lordships may not be aware of is the relationships that were forged, particularly during Covid, with the Food Resilience Industry Forum. Frankly, it was the partnership between government and the food processors that are being maligned that kept food on the shelves, so that people could get fed during the challenges that were faced at that time and to some extent during Ukraine a little bit later. Fast-forwarding somewhat and thinking about UPF and science, I would recommend that your Lordships read Dr Amati’s article in the Times today, which talks about this issue and the challenge of how, to be candid, the Nova classification is not just in the balance like the committee has suggested but has been discredited as being ineffective in its classifications. The Nova classification gave a starting point, which was a good thing, but it needs to evolve. That is why the important work still needs to continue. If more research could be done towards that, it would be a welcome move by the Government. In thinking about the needs of families, we have to remember the cost of living challenge that people face. When food inflation was rising, we had food companies admitting in private that their policies of pursuing net zero by 2030 were increasing the cost of food for families right across the country. When we challenged them about changing that while we had the national emergency, the answer was, quite simply, no. That was a concern to me, but I appreciated that trying to legislate to change that, or creating some new strategy, would simply just add to a very long list. As a consequence, going into the Department of Health as I did, I was accused of all sorts of things at the time, despite the fact that we had a series of strategies. We sat down, looked at the impact assessments for all the different bits of legislation and tried to prioritise those that would make the most difference. That is why banning buy one, get one free during a cost of living crisis was not necessary, especially when the marginal impact was so low. I hope that the updated food strategy that we will see later this year will have a systemic approach to achieving the outcomes that noble Lords seem to be seeking. I agree with the committee on one specific recommendation: getting the Food Data Transparency Partnership to complete its work. It is one of the best things I set up when in government. It is done on a basis of trust, but it should not be delayed. I encourage the Minister to work with her colleagues to make sure that goes through. I speak as somebody who is super-obese. Noble Lords may not believe this, but about 20 years ago, I lost 8 stone. I did that by not eating or drinking alcohol—that was pretty much it. I cannot pretend that it has stayed off—far from it. It is not a lack of desire and, as I said to the health officials when I went in, I am a classic example of failure. What has gone wrong? It was not the nutritionist who advised me to eat more carbohydrates. What was it? This is still a journey and there are many good recommendations, but I encourage the Government to focus on delivery and not on more strategies and laws that distract from getting the job done.

11:33:00

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Walmsley on the way she chaired the meeting and kept us together, including making us do a lot of extra homework. It was tremendous, and I so enjoyed working with all our colleagues on the committee. I thank the clerks, Stuart and Lucy, and our special adviser. They found fantastic witnesses and ensured that all of them turned up and that, where they could not come, we got great evidence. It made such a difference to the report. I am pleased to join the debate as a member of the committee and to discuss our report, Recipe for Health: A Plan to Fix Our Broken Food System. I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the urgent need for reform in how we produce, market and consume food in the United Kingdom. We should consider this in terms of how children and children who are not born yet will have to live in this society, with the high number of obese people we have, and remember that, if a mother is obese, the child has a high likelihood of being obese as well. We must look at that and encourage mothers, through maternal health and in every way, to try to change how they eat. However, we must assist them, including by changing something in the planning system that we learned about in the committee, which is that a lot of flats are now being built or converted where there is no kitchen, so the only thing in the let is a microwave. That is something we must try to alter. It is not for this report, and it is not for the Food Minister, but it is something to be passed down with change in planning laws. Our food system is broken. Over 60% of UK adults are overweight or obese, and diet-related illnesses consume our national health billions each year. However, let us be clear, it is not merely a matter of personal choice; this is a systematic failure driven by a food industry dominated by multinational giants—companies such as Nestlé, PepsiCo and fast-food chains, as we found out in Blackpool, that flood our shelves and high streets with ultra-processed foods. These products, packed with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, make up over half of the average British diet—one of the highest rates in Europe. Why? It is because they are cheap to produce and have long shelf lives. How long have they been on the shelves or in the warehouses by the time they get to anybody’s home? They are engineered to keep us coming back for more. This is not an accident; it is the business model. Through relentless lobbying, they have stalled or diluted policies meant to protect public health. Let us take the HFSS advertising restrictions—rules designed to limit junk food ads aimed at children. The report highlights how industry pushback delayed those measures, with groups such as the Food and Drink Federation decrying the impact on “innovation” and “jobs”. The result is a generation hooked before it can make informed choices. Supermarkets are complicit too. A handful of chains control most of our grocery markets, determining what consumers see and buy. The report points out how shelf space is auctioned off to the highest bidders, processed food brands—as we notice when we go to the supermarket—while fresh local produce is sidelined. In low-income areas, cheap own-brand ultra-processed foods dominate, making healthy eating a luxury that many cannot afford. Products labelled “low fat” or “high protein” are still loaded with additives and sugar. This confusion, the committee warns, drowns out clear nutritional advice. Profit is the driving force behind this crisis. Reformulating products to cut sugar or salt risks losing that addictive edge and, with it, sales. Voluntary pledges such as the failed public health responsibility deal have proven ineffective. Without a legal framework and enforcement, the industry will not change. The report cites a £6 billion annual burden on the National Health Service due to obesity—money that could fund schools and school meals; as we know, school meals are not made in schools any more but in different places and then brought to schools. They are not good food. Further, school budgets are now run by schools and, sometimes, if they need money for other issues in the school, they cut school meals—it is an easy cut, without anybody noticing. We have to be quite tough about school meals and what children are fed at school. The Recipe for Health report offers a bold plan to fix this mess, and it starts with breaking corporate strangleholds. First, we need tougher regulation. The committee calls for mandatory reformulation targets forcing companies to cut sugar, salt and fat, with penalties for non-compliance. The soft drinks industry levy cut sugar in sodas by 44%; imagine that success applied across the food categories. Secondly, we must ban all junk food marketing everywhere. Our children deserve the chance to grow up free from corporate manipulation. Thirdly, we must level the playing field. The report urges subsidies for healthy foods—making fruit, vegetables and whole grains cheaper than a Happy Meal. We should tax ultra-processed foods harder and use the revenue to fund community kitchens or school meal programmes that teach children to love real food. We also should consider going back to teaching cooking meals in schools.

11:40:00

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing this debate, chairing the committee so expertly and allowing me to attend all its meetings. I say at the beginning that, as far as controversy is concerned, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his views about ultra-processed foods: there is no scientific evidence that they are the cause of the obesity epidemic, and it is strange that his advice is not accepted. The next controversy was with Dr Chris van Tulleken, who addressed the committee and told it that the personal responsibility argument is “morally, economically, socially, politically and scientifically dead and buried”, so all such policies must be removed from the table. To be fair to him, he was not around, as I was, during the successful campaign against AIDS in the 1980s and the campaign in Uganda. I was responsible for setting up hospices for people dying of AIDS in London and in Uganda. The reason why these campaigns were so successful is that they were honest. They did not wrap everything up in euphemisms. Norman Fowler was the Secretary of State for Health, and he was absolutely honest and frank. He said, “AIDS: Don’t Die of Ignorance”. You see, if you were honest with people and explained to them what was required, each individual had to take responsibility for himself or herself in taking precautions to avoid getting AIDS—and it worked. In fact, the programme in Uganda, the ABC programme, led by the Ugandan Government, brought down the incidence of AIDS from 34% to 4%. That is hard data and cannot be argued against. Perhaps we should be saying, “Don’t die of complacency, don’t die of obesity”. I have been saying this for the last 20 years. There is only one cause of obesity: eating too much. The 40 million overweight people in this country are not like French geese subjected to gavage. They are not force-fed to produce pâté de foie gras. French geese should have a right to complain against their masters for force-feeding them, but obese people have no such luxury to engage in the blame game. It is time to recognise that we have to ignore many of the excuses that are put forward to persuade obese people that it is not their fault—that it is inevitable that they are obese because they live in an “obesogenic” society, as a professor at Oxford says. We really ought to understand that the total cost to the NHS, which I think has been mentioned, is not £5 billion but £98 billion. That is what is wrecking the National Health Service. If we want to save it, it is no good reforming it yet again; it has been reformed about eight times in the last few years, and none of those have worked. But if we start reducing demand, in getting people to slim down, that will work. The obesity epidemic is such a disaster. We have to do something about it and get people to realise their personal responsibility. There is one cause of obesity and one cause only. There are no diseases that cause obesity. The one cause is eating too much. It is high time that that was recognised. We have to dispel the fake propaganda that people are victims of an obesogenic society, and to encourage successful methods such as fasting and calorie counting in reducing dietary intake. Of course, exercise is important for our general health but not for losing weight—it does not work very well indeed. The clarion call to the 40 million overweight people is this: save yourselves, save the NHS, save £98 billion a year, and find the way that you want to reduce your weight.

11:46:00

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her leadership on all this and the expert committee which has worked and supported her. I agree with so much of what has been said today, and I am conscious that, with time running short, I do not want to repeat that. I want to focus a bit more on carrot and not just stick. I, too, pay tribute to Sharon Hodgson, who has many times been a one-woman campaigner on school food. We have had others: Jamie Oliver has done a huge amount, and the school food plan has achieved a huge amount, but we must not give up on creating a love of food and cooking from scratch. When I hear a lot about our broken food system, I would say it is very much our choices that are broken rather than just the food system. All roads lead back to education and opportunity. I look at countries such as Finland and what it has achieved: it has been recently reported yet again to be the happiest country in the world and has had the longest period of free school meals of any country in the world since 1948. Much has been said about France but also Japan—another of the healthiest countries on Earth, with food much more expensive than it is here. There, I think, lies some of the challenge around the culture of our food. We remain slightly lost, whether we are European or American—and we have inherited the worst of both in many cases. It will be education, in many ways, that drives us back to a love of food and to cooking from scratch, and it will need carrot and stick to achieve it. We have had a long-term cheap food policy that has crossed all political parties. At what price have we had that policy? We have the most affordable food in Europe and the third most affordable food per income spend of any country in the world. It is also worth noting that we waste more food than any other country in Europe, which tells us very clearly that we are not learning to value our food. So I put two questions to the Minister. We have had a long-term, cross-party focus on the importance of STEM learning. Is it not time that food, diet and fitness, which have been key to Finland’s and Japan’s success, were treated in the same way in our curriculum as STEM? I am also interested to know: how will the government food board join up across departments? For my entire time at the NFU, I failed to get into the Department for Education. If we are to have success here, we must have a food board that is truly joined up and is not competitive within government departments. That, I fear, is what could happen.

11:50:00

My Lords, our debate has created much passion and many personal emotions for me, including in thinking about the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and his experience of giving up alcohol 43 years ago. We have had a fairly wide consensus across the House on many measures that are needed to help reduce the large gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest in this country; to reduce the figure of two in every five children in England leaving primary school above a healthy weight; and to lessen the financial and other burdens placed on people who are overweight and on the nation as a whole. But we have also heard constant frustration about the Government’s very limited response to the excellent report. Indeed, I think the flavour of the debate has been largely to describe the response as pitiful. Thirty years ago, I was 40 kilos heavier than I am now—or, to put it another way, I am now more than six stone lighter. My weight is still going down, but it has been an issue throughout my life and a source of depression. It made me a target for bullying from school onwards. I consider myself fortunate to now be classified as “overweight” rather than “obese”, but we cannot just hope for good fortune to reverse the escalating scale of the problem with obesity and its links, for people like me, to type 2 diabetes and other health conditions. In discussing the Government’s response to the excellent report of our Select Committee, so brilliantly led by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, our debate has highlighted much of what I feel that I have learned personally, and often painfully, as I used to let my own health get completely out of control. We have highlighted very strongly how the Government really must take forward more of the many practical and positive suggestions in the report. We know that they have some determination to do so, but that this determination is still very limited. I mention my personal struggle with weight and diabetes because one of the things that we must address is the stigma that accompanies these conditions as we address educating children, and their parents, about such issues. The approach of personal responsibility and “pull your own socks up”, if I might thus describe the approach set out by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is not just unhelpful but deeply counterproductive. I learned nothing about nutrition at school. I am probably one of the few Members of this House who had free school meals. I always chose the options with chips, but I see much worse options being chosen these days, as children leave school in the early afternoon, not having had any form of lunch, and pour into the nearby fried chicken and burger shops. In relation to food generally, I prefer the French approach described by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I am pleased that more fast food outlets will, in future, be blocked from selling cheap, unhealthy, high-fat products so near to schools, but in my view they should really be banned from selling such products in close proximity to schools altogether. I welcome the long-overdue restrictions on the advertising of their products targeted at young people. But, as my noble friend Lady Suttie said, parents do not have information or understanding about sugar content. We really must properly address issues of labelling. Only the provision of healthy and nutritious free school meals will really help to address the problems we are talking about. In the meantime, I welcome the greater provision of breakfast clubs, which I hope will offer healthy alternatives to white toast and sugary cereals. Boys and girls, men and women can all suffer from body image issues, as well as from the health conditions that arise from being overweight, including the greater likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes. Schools need to address these issues while doing much more to promote health education, cookery skills, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and physical activity in schools and after school. The resulting ill-health caused by being overweight or obese is, for many families, a major factor in their relative poverty. It limits their capacity to work, their life experiences and their emotional well-being, and puts significant burdens on the state through our health and care system. It results in damage to the economy, as there is far more reliance on the state and there are fewer tax contributions. The Institute for Government estimates that the economic impact of obesity in this country is between 1% and 2% of our GDP. Healthier food is, sadly, more expensive than the least healthy options. Families are trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty causing ill health, which makes it harder for them to get out of poverty and live more healthily. That is why I and my party strongly support scrapping the two-child limit for universal credit or tax credits. But we are going in the wrong direction this week with the Government’s new measures, which will push 50,000 more children into poverty and a total of 250,000 people altogether. The Government’s response to the report accepts that “mandatory regulation can drive change”, and says that parts of the industry welcome the setting of a level playing field to avoid the most unscrupulous in the food and drink industry seeking competitive advantage. But we should also ask why action that was promised after the Covid pandemic highlighted the dangers of being overweight was suddenly rolled back. The answer is the unscrupulous lobbying on behalf of parts of the industry, adopting tactics with which some of us are familiar from the tobacco industry. They seek to scare MPs and those who work for them into thinking that action to improve the nation’s health may be damaging electorally. Such lobbyists use their dark arts via well-funded think tanks, which, unlike political parties, can keep their sources of funding secret. Those who lobby in this way must be forced in future to declare their sources of funding and to list them, together with all their contacts with Ministers, parliamentarians and those who work with us. The soft drinks levy has proved hugely successful and we need such a measure now for foods, especially for ultra-processed foods. Some of what the Government are doing is welcome, but there is widespread agreement about the problems, as the report clearly shows. The Government can and should go further and faster and be more radical as we seek to tackle the epidemics of obesity and diabetes.

11:59:00

My Lords, what an excellent and informative debate this has been. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and her committee members for this timely, hard-hitting and excellent report. She made an outstanding speech opening this debate. The report makes some important key recommendations. As noble Lords have rightly highlighted, two-thirds of adults in the UK are currently overweight or obese. The UK has the third-highest rate of obesity in Europe, behind only Malta and Turkey. While the rates of obesity among adults appear to have stabilised over the past five years, we clearly still have a long way to go. Much greater pace needs to be introduced to tackle, in a holistic way, obesity and the issues that surround it. We are often bombarded by statements that healthy eating is simply a choice, but I am afraid that the choice is often illusory. It is not just as simple as that, as has been powerfully articulated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie, Lady Freeman of Steventon and Lady Goudie, and my noble friends Lady Jenkin of Kennington and Lord Caithness in relation to issues around ultra-processed foods. Those who cannot afford healthier alternatives or children in schools who are not given healthier options do not have the luxury of choice. Nor is there sufficient choice of quality foods for those on lower incomes, as outlined so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown. Oviva, a provider of NHS weight management services, estimates that 22% of its patients are in the bottom socioeconomic groups and 13% are unemployed, as my noble friend Lady Browning and other noble Lords referred to. As has also been mentioned, eating habits are often formed in childhood. The foods made available to our children often follow them into adulthood, and the choices made, as the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, outlined, can remain for a very long time. NHS Digital’s 2024 national child measurement programme showed that two in five children in England leave primary school above a healthy weight, as referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Brooke. As the report makes clear, environmental factors are one of the most significant drivers of those habits. If we as a society are to have any hope of tackling the scale of the obesity crisis, we must start by making positive changes in the food environment our children are exposed to, in relation to not only food safety but quality, as my noble friend Lady Coffey outlined so ably. There is precedent for this. The Japanese health authority is world leading. A 2021 article in Pediatrics International pointed to the comprehensive and consistent health education in Japanese schools. This is enabled by a national curriculum that embeds scientifically backed teaching on how to form healthier eating habits and the provision in every school of a qualified nutritionist to prepare school meal plans that are low in salt, sugar and fats. Will the Minister look at working with her ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure better health and nutrition education? All this is essential to address the issues identified by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi. As his report established, we need to move away from reactive medicine and towards a far greater focus on preventive healthcare. I know the Minister supports this. Of course, a healthier population is the foundation of a healthier economy. Frontier Economics estimated that in 2023 the total economic cost of obesity was £98 billion, as so ably outlined by my noble friends Lord Bethell and Lord McColl. It is evidently in all our best interests to make further progress here. There are also a few warnings that we must heed, which a number of noble Lords have outlined. First, all noble Lords will be aware of the recent rise in the use and availability of weight-loss drugs such as semaglutide and tirzepatide. While these drugs have some success in helping people, they should be available only to those who need them, access should not be limited by affordability, and we must be careful about overmedication. Secondly, we must be wary of vested interests, as my noble friend Lady Browning, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and other noble Lords highlighted very powerfully. The Government have recently announced their food strategy board, comprising the heads of a number of large food retailers. I appreciate the importance of bringing the industry together, but there must be an assurance that such a body will not simply lobby for its own interests to the detriment of public health. What safeguards will be put in place to address that? In conclusion, the Government need to address this urgently and put in place key preventive strategies to address the root causes of obesity and poor health now. Although it will be welcome, we cannot afford to wait for the Government’s 10-year plan. Indeed, the NHS cannot afford financially and structurally to wait that long. Action on tackling obesity does not require the reinvention of the wheel. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, my noble friends Lady Meyer, Lord Bethell and Lady Jenkin and other noble Lords have said, the research has been done, the reports have been published and it now falls on the Government to be bold, to act and to implement the recommendations at pace. All the evidence is there.

12:06:00

My Lords, I welcome the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee report. Like many noble Lords, I express gratitude to the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to all members of her committee for their dedication and insight into improving the health of the nation. My thanks also go to those who contributed their time and expertise in providing evidence and support for the committee’s work. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government published their response to the report on 30 January following the publication of the committee’s report in October. This has indeed been a very valuable debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords for their wisdom, experience and contributions. It has been acknowledged throughout that one thing we are in full agreement about is the characterisation of the problem as set out in the report. As highlighted by many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Meyer, and my noble friend Lady Brown, we face a childhood obesity crisis. Well over a third of children are living with obesity or are overweight by the time they leave primary school. It is not equal across the country. This is a matter that disproportionately affects those in disadvantaged areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, highlighted, among other things, we also have some two-thirds of adults overweight or living with obesity. The impact is huge, increasing the risk of many serious diseases, exacerbating mental health issues and reducing the years lived in good health, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, bringing to bear his experience as a former Health Minister, rightly observed. We know that prevention will always be better than cure. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, referred to the evidence on this found by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, on which he commented strongly. It will form one of the three pillars of the 10-year health plan. It is also why prevention is at the heart of our health mission. As noble Lords know, I really do not like to disappoint them and particularly do not like to disappoint the chair of the committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I heard not just from the noble Baroness but from others their observations, which included disappointment at the Government’s response. I hear that and will endeavour to respond in a way that I hope noble Lords will find helpful to alleviate some disappointment. I am sure noble Lords will tell me whether I succeed. We need to tackle the root causes of obesity. My noble friend Lady Brown was absolutely right to highlight the impact of poverty and homelessness, and all that those mean. We have to address, as we have heard today, the increasingly unhealthy changes in our food environment and make healthier choices cheaper, more attractive and more available in order that the healthy choice is not just the easy but the smart choice. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Browning, said, it is about equipping people—I bow to the experience and cookery skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, in this regard—with skills because unless they are equipped, it is just not going to happen. Looking at what action has been taken so far, I do not pretend for a moment that this is a speedy or simple task. The committee expressed its concerns that the actions taken—at the time of the report, I might add—were not bold enough, nor was the Government’s response, and nor was it moving fast enough, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, particularly said, in its urgency. A number of noble Lords have been good enough to refer to the actions that have already been taken. Since coming into government in July, we have indeed laid secondary legislation to restrict advertisements of less healthy food and drink to children on TV and online from 1 October this year. My noble friend Lady Goudie recalled that that had not happened previous to this Government and referred to the strong voice of industry against this measure. I certainly remember, when in opposition and standing at the Dispatch Box opposite, urging action. I am glad that we have done this. A number of noble Lords spoke about the influence of industry. I will come back to this later, but it is not my experience, either as a Minister in this Government or the previous Labour Government, that because I spoke with industry or any other stakeholders, I necessarily agreed with or felt pressured by them. I heard the comparisons that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made with the tobacco industry. I can absolutely say, as a former Public Health Minister, it was not my experience that because they were spoken to by those with a different view, our previous Labour Government—or indeed this one—went along with that. What I do believe in is transparency. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, referred to figures under the previous Government of the numbers of meetings. The noble Baroness and all noble Lords will know that it is required—and absolutely right—that Ministers and others declare their interests and, more than that, the meetings we have. That is absolutely crucial and I am completely on board with doing that. Another area in which we have taken action has also been referred to. I am glad the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was good enough to support this. We have given local authorities stronger and clearer powers to block new fast-food outlets near schools and where young people congregate. We have gone further than our manifesto commitments. The October Budget uprated the soft drinks industry levy and I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for continuing to highlight this. That action, as we know, has taken thousands of tonnes of sugar out of the drinks that are consumed every day. I believe, and it is evidenced, that this uprating will keep this action effective and continue to drive reformulation by industry towards healthier products. We know that we need to go further. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, reminded us of the challenge for individuals, not just the system. I appreciate how personally she told us of those challenges. It is not just the complexity of the landscape, as noble Lords have said and I agree, but the complexity of the challenge for individuals, referred to very personally by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. It is right that we support, guide, educate and make it possible for individuals to be part of the solution. We will need new measures to further improve the food environment, more measures to trigger the reformulation of less healthy products and more support for people to make healthier choices. I have heard the committee’s concern that it takes too long to make new policy commitments. I was reflecting on this when preparing for this debate and I take that point. The Government’s response, which was made not many months after coming into government, was made in January this year but it was started as soon as we received the committee’s very welcome report. Being realistic, the Government were not ready to make firm positions on introducing, or indeed rejecting, many of the committee’s more specific recommendations. For me, that perhaps explains or illustrates some of the reasons behind the Government’s response. Of course, policies will be informed by strategy. I am going to use the word “complex” again, but the food system—noble Lords have illustrated this today, as they have done on many occasions—is very complex. There is a need to engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders in government, in industry and in the health and academic sector to make sure that policies will be effective and proportionate. To take the necessary steps, we need to have the machinery in place to drive progress, bringing together many government departments including the Department for Education—I refer the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, to this point—as well as non-government stakeholders. We also need to develop and drive forward an agenda for change. That is why, in addition to the work under way within the health mission—a new approach to government and very much a core approach—we are developing a new cross-government food strategy, as has been spoken about a lot today and as recommended by the committee’s report. The noble Baroness, Lady Batters, urged a joined-up approach across government, including the role of the Department for Education. Indeed, that department is very much part of that, as are other government departments. The food strategy will promote more easily accessible and healthy food to tackle obesity and diet-related ill-health and will help children to get the best start in life. There has been a lot of discussion about the advisory board to the strategy. I will make a couple of additional points, alongside those that have already been highlighted. The strategy was announced on 21 March. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, Daniel Zeichner MP, is the chair, and it held its first meeting on Wednesday 26 March. The board will initially meet monthly. On the points about the composition of what is, as I have emphasised, an advisory board, Defra worked closely, and continues to, with the Institute of Grocery Distribution to establish the board, and the IGD will act as co-secretariat for the meetings. The food strategy and the health mission are both about delivering change—the very premise on which this Government were elected. I can give the assurance that all policy options are being fully considered, recognising the need to engage with a wide range of government and non-government stakeholders. This includes engaging with the food industry, as my noble friend Lord Brooke acknowledged. Our food environment, as noble Lords have rightly said, needs to improve. The food industry shapes our food environment, and it needs to be part of the solution. That is a point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, brought her experience in three very relevant departments to bear in this debate. Engaging in this way is vital to allow us to understand how changes may impact the food supply chain and how to deal with possible risks. Noble Lords are eager to see progress, and so am I. I am conscious that we are not dealing with a new or unexpected problem, but one that has been allowed to develop over many years. Our reaction to that, in the form of our action plan, must include properly designed policies that have been consulted on. We need to remove barriers to implementation and set out a clear path and a timeline for delivery to avoid delay and uncertainty. On the points about mandatory regulation, our action will not stop with the actions we have already taken. I have heard the concerns and the urgings to be bold. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was quoted. I remember him saying: “We’re at our best when at our boldest”. Mandatory regulation can drive change and establish a level playing field between companies which have already taken voluntary action and those which have yet to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned a Cambridge report which said that hundreds of policies have been failing because of a voluntary approach. The reference to the balance of voluntary and mandatory measures in the Government’s response to the committee’s report did not mean a reliance on wholly voluntary measures, nor was it “giving in”—to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—to industry lobbying. I have already outlined the steps that we have taken, and we will fulfil our commitment to banning the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to under-16s. We will not shy away from taking necessary mandatory action. I believe we have already shown ourselves to be going in that direction where it is needed and where it will produce the best result. On the important matter of supporting children, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that taking a life course approach is key to our commitment to give every child the best start in life. Again, I reassure noble Lords that the Department for Education has an important role in achieving that. All of this starts with helping families to access support for feeding their baby. For those who use infant formula, it is vital that they can access affordable and high-quality products—something that I know is of interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. We therefore welcome the Competition and Markets Authority’s formula report. We will consider carefully the recommendations and will respond to it. The affordability and availability of healthy food is key for those trying to feed their family. We are committed to providing a healthy diet for young people and providing support to families who need it most through our Healthy Start scheme. The issue of mandatory school food standards was raised by my noble friend Lady Brown and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Freeman, among others. These standards are in place throughout the school day. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that they apply to the new school breakfast clubs. I have heard the concerns of noble Lords. The DfE keeps the approach to school food and ensuring compliance under review. Our two departments will continue to work together. I turn quickly to ultra-processed foods. I agree that further research is needed to establish why and whether these foods are unhealthy: is it the processing or the nutritional content? As we have heard in the debate from the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord McColl, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Suttie, there is a difference of opinion about this. That is why the SACN regularly reviews new and emerging evidence and will publish statements on UPFs and non-sugar sweeteners. We are also commissioning new research. Once again, I thank the committee for its report. It articulated the seriousness of the challenge. I hope that, today, I have described some of the mechanisms through which we will work to drive change. We know we have to go further, where previous Governments have not done so. I look forward to being able to set out further actions that we will take in due course.

12:27:00

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response, and I will come back to some of her comments in just a moment. Time does not allow me to thank everyone and pick up points from all the fantastic speeches we have heard today. However, the hard-hitting speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, reminded me that I was remiss at the beginning of my introduction to not thank her. She had the clever idea of producing a podcast to disseminate more widely the fantastic evidence that we received. I thank her for the many hours of her—absolutely free—professional advice and work. Noble Lords might be interested to know that, next week, our digital department is going to publish a short YouTube video about this debate and the Government’s response. I am going to film some of it next Tuesday. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I say that regulation is needed because voluntary action has failed. If the food industry does not like it, they have only themselves to blame, because they did not come up trumps when it came to voluntary targets. However, I agree that it is not the only thing that is needed and thank her for the FDTP; its work is really needed to get the metrics for measuring the achievement of mandatory health targets, which we recommended. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, mentioned a lot of food companies. He might be interested to know that the majority of them were invited to give us evidence and refused to do so. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, about markets. I spoke recently to Sadiq Khan’s health adviser, Professor Etherington, who is a long-standing GP in London. He was very keen on markets because, through them, people on low incomes can get healthy food for the same price that they might pay for unhealthy food in the supermarket. That was a very good point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on UPF, that the committee came down in the middle ground. We asked the Government to fund more research and to really take notice of what it comes up with. We also suggested that it would be appropriate, in dietary guidelines, to warn people that it could be dangerous to have too much UPF in their whole dietary pattern, because it pushes out wholefoods. We had very hard-hitting speeches about children’s food from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown of Silvertown and Lady Suttie, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others. I say to the Minister that nobody can criticise a Government which do stuff to improve the diet of children, so they should go ahead and do as much as they can on that. They will not get any criticism or push-back from the population. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, that I regret that we did not have the opportunity or time to talk about food waste—she is absolutely right about that. We had only eight months and we could not look at education, sustainable production, food security or food waste; I only wish we could have done so. However, the Minister has given me some hope. The last Government showed that you can legislate and then give time for implementation to be prepared for—the advertising ban is one of those things, although I do not think it should have taken three and a half years. I also point out to her that the IGD, which is the secretariat of the advisory committee for the food strategy, is an element of the food industry. I am very pleased to hear that the Minister intends to keep some of our recommendations under review, and I assure her that many people in this Chamber today will also be keeping an eye on her and the Government. We will follow up in detail how many of the things that we are proposing are put into place by the Government. So it really is encouraging to hear some of the things that she has said, but there are some things that we need to watch very carefully. I say to the Government that, if they get to the end of their five-year term of office and have not done something to improve the healthiness of the food in this country, they will suffer at the ballot box, because this is what people want. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission has done a lot of polling on this, and it is very clear that it is what people want, so, if the Government want to win the next election, they need to do something about it. The best advice I can give the Minister has already been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin: listen to Tony Blair and be bold.

Motion agreed.