(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy 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?”
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberI thank my noble friend for raising that point. We are in the process of reviewing the evidence on front-of-pack nutrition labelling, which can include bottles as well as foods. We will consider whether any further action is needed to support healthier choices.
My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee and I remind the Minister that the industry was reluctant to come and give us evidence. However, in the evidence that we took from young campaigners—the average UPF intake of some young people is 80% of their diet—they told us that they are overwhelmed with targeted advertising on social media, both from the food industry, particularly the UPF and HFSS industry, and local food chains. Do the Government have any plans to reduce that or encourage the industry to bombard them less on social media?
I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the influences on young people, in particular. It is exactly why, in December, we laid secondary legislation to implement a 9 pm TV watershed for the advertising of less healthy food. The noble Baroness referred to social media, and we are looking into that to see what may be necessary, but I accept the link she made.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberI understand the point my noble friend rightly raises, and I emphasise again that what matters here are safety considerations—particularly when we are talking about children and young people—but also the evidence in respect of treatments, that there should be the prescription only of medication which is safe and appropriate to the actual patient and situation.
My Lords, given that puberty blockers almost invariably lead to cross-sex hormones, can the Minister explain why the proposed trial cannot study those who have already used or are using puberty blockers, rather than starting with a new cohort of children? Given that the trial will look at the long-term effects on health, does she have any indication of how long that trial will need to continue, and is it right that it might be for up to 30 years?
I do not recognise the last point that the noble Baroness made about the time. The aim is to start recruiting participants in spring next year and, as I mentioned, the National Institute for Health and Care Research is working with NHS England to develop the clinical trials. They are the first in the world and I will be very pleased to provide further information as and when it is available.
(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord McColl for initiating and introducing today’s debate. He and I have shared a tiny cupboard—sorry, room—for the past 10 or so years and have spent many happy hours discussing obesity, its impact on the population and the cost to the country. It is great to be expanding those private conversations into a more public arena today. For many years, this topic was rather a niche interest; my noble friend I were almost the only people to raise it in the Chamber. However, I am delighted that more people are now aware of the urgency of the situation, as the financial and personal costs have rocketed.
I am delighted to be the fourth member of the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, which reported last week, to speak today. I hope my noble friend and the Minister will forgive me for straying a little outside the subject of today’s debate to make some broader comments about a healthy diet, including learnings from our report. As we have heard, the report, Recipe for Health: A Plan to Fix Our Broken Food System, has been widely welcomed by food campaigners and others active in the sector. I urge noble Lords who were not on the committee, especially the Minister, to read at least the report’s conclusions and recommendations.
What became clear over the course of hours of evidence is that our food system is broken and needs to be fixed for people to have better diets and healthier lives. The statistics speak for themselves and are terrifying. Two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, while the situation with children is as bad—and growing. The costs are enormous: at least 1% to 2% of UK GDP, with billions in healthcare costs and lost productivity.
This public health emergency is driven primarily by the overconsumption of unhealthy foods. As we have discussed, today’s debate is not about ultra-processed foods, which now make up nearly 70% of the average young person’s diet; there will be plenty of opportunity to debate those and the responsibility of the food industry in greater detail when—in the not too distant future, I hope—our report is discussed. Rather, it is about having a healthy and balanced diet, and how we can achieve that for both children and adults.
All of us in this Room—at least, those of us speaking —grew up eating real food: meats and two veg, liver, stews and roasts, all freshly cooked. There was little choice, and there was no constant marketing or encouragement to snack between meals. There were no takeaways or out-of-home delivery services, which add significantly to excess calories. Today’s children are more likely to be drinking puréed fruit from pouches than biting into an apple. They are more comfortable opening packets or takeaway trays and are hardly able even to recognise real food. Our parents would find today’s dietary patterns absolutely unrecognisable.
Only last month, the Prime Minister said that the NHS was in a critical condition and that there would be no extra money without reform. The review of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and the Secretary of State’s response to it confirmed the analysis of Henry Dimbleby’s food strategy and highlighted the importance of prevention, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others mentioned. It was disappointing, therefore, to see seemingly nothing in the Budget to address this matter. We have a major health problem on which, if it were a communicable epidemic, the Government would be forced to act. People want to do the right thing but need help and support. The recommendations in our report are clear; I urge the Government to act on them.
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberIt is right that what children are given to eat in schools is absolutely crucial. The school food standards are in place, and they are meant to regulate and restrict food and drink that is provided in schools. It is important, and will be part of our move, following on from the Darzi review, towards the 10-year plan, to look at the quality of free school meals and ensure that they meet the requirements to support children and young people to eat healthily, not just for the immediate future but for forming good habits for the future.
My Lords, the House’s special-inquiry Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity is due to report by the end of the month. The Government do not traditionally have a very good reputation for responding to many of the recommendations made by these committees, but may I urge the Minister to look very carefully at our recommendations? We spent a year on the report, I think it will be hard-hitting and I hope it will be helpful.
I certainly expect that it will be hard-hitting and helpful. The committee was of course appointed to consider the role of foods, including ultra-processed foods—something which has been of great interest to noble Lords—foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and their impact on a healthy diet and tackling obesity. I certainly look forward to the recommendations of the report, and I hope that we can surprise the noble Baroness in a good way with our response.