Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Lords Chamber
Lords Chamber
Friday 28th March 2025
(began 6 months ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:06
Debate: Report from the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee: 'Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system'
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Motion Motion for Motion for debate, Motion for debate, debate Motion for debate, debate of Motion for debate, debate of the food and obesity committee.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I start by thanking the members of the committee for their
10:06
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
members of the committee for their hard work and dedication and our wonderful staff team will stop
Stuart Stoner, Lucien, Abdul Ahmed, Laura reacher and Kate Willett. And they advise of our specialist
adviser Professor Martin Wright who was absolutely crucial. Albert
Einstein is once said to have said,
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Unfortunately, the government's response to the
committees recommendations smacks of
insanity. Why? Because we have an obesity crisis and a consequent health crisis which the NHS is meant
to clear up.
Each three of their response accepts that this is real,
urgent, and caused by bad food. And yet there is no commitment to do
things differently. There was outrage from food and health campaigners at the government's response. The following sentence
appeared in an article and with grocer periodical, cold, however,
food industry bosses welcomed the
response to the enquiry. Yes, that says it all. Of course they did.
They are nothing all the way to the bank with their profits on making our children sick because the Government has hardly accepted any
of the recommendations in the committees report.
All they have committed to is implementing the
policies of the previous Government.
Renewing, reviewing the softer and industry levy, implementing the advertising ban unless 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 remit was to consider the role of food such as
ultra processed food 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 last 30 years. Less cooking from scratch, more fast food
outlets, more ultra processed food. They are usually high in calories, highly palatable, high in harmful
nutrients such as salt, sugar, and
saturated fat. 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 whilst 36% is on
confectionery snacks, desserts, and soft drinks. We heard that food is
an equality issue. The poorest 20% of people who 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 concern less than half of
the recommended amount of future and veg for twice the amount of sugar.
The committee looked at Government action over the last 30 years, while
overweight and obesity has 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 they had 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 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 and soft drinks,
as manufacturers reformulated to
avoid paying the tax. That was the point of it, of course. The committee, therefore, determined not to follow into the same traps and that led to our main recommendation
that the Government should develop a comprehensive, long-term, strategic
approach to oversight and regulation of the food system backed up by
of the food system backed up by
legislation.
Despite them saying they would steamroller over the ministry if they did not improve, the Government is 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, gambling, so why not food? Not just the safety of food but its quality and healthiness.
So,
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. There is no commitment to reviewing the school foods standards and the eligibility
for and value of free school. No commitment to increase Healthy Start
payments, address the deluge of advertising and junkfood 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, the health issue.
To move
from treatment to prevention. What has happened? The only tangible initiative on obesity has been
treatment through expensive and time obesity jobs which would cripple the NHS budget according to Nestor,
rather than primary prevention by ensuring everyone can get a healthy diet. I do not deny that jobs can be
appropriate and successful, but prevention is cheaper. Thirdly, to
save the NHS where the cost of treating obesity -related illness is 80 where the cost of treating obesity -related illness is £80 billion per year, but the Government
seems content for the taxpayer to
pay for the NHS to foot the bill for obesity rather than the food industry that caused it.
Firstly,
the new National Food Strategy which 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 that membership of the advisory for this strategy was announced. Although
there are several very good people on the board, the majority are from food industries and so is the
secretariat. Talk about the fox in
secretariat. Talk about the fox in
the hen coop, it includes a major supermarket that refused to give the committee evidence in public but instead offered us a private meeting with researchers who they fund.
We
rightly refused on transparency grounds. I wish the advisory and the
food strategy well, but I think it is already in danger of already
going in the wrong direction. And finally the government's growth object. 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 do qualify for benefits, adding £4 billion per year to the government's existential economic parties 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 it wanted
to. We said recently our sick society is holding back our economy
and that is why we should act. The committee heartily agreed. Because
the annual economic cost of overweight and obesity is £98
billion. Professor Susan Chair of FSA pointed out, at a time when
Government is looking closely at public expenditure, it is 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 -
On the +, investors told us 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 object and the public's wishes. 68 % of those
polled showed support for the committees recommendation for a
sugar and salt reformulation tax.
Indeed, our recommendations could have been written precisely to
enable the Government to achieve its objectives. But that means it 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 its food
policies independently of companies that rely mainly on sales of less healthy food. But should engage on implementation. After all, the
Government's objectives should be public health, while the industry's legitimate objective is making
profit.
In many cases, these two objectives are incompatible. But the
Government has given a majority on the blue strategy advisory board to
the food industry. So I asked the Minister, is the government
deliberately misrepresenting a recommendation or is he 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 don't care who pays for the health consequences as long as it is not them.
But the government says it
will, "Continue to review the balance between mandatory and voluntary measures". But, my Lords,
the voluntary target of reducing sugar by 20 % resulted in a measly
3.5 % reduction. Is the Government serious about saving the NHS, improving children's health and
growing the economy? So, my Lords, 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 and food banks Andriy distributors 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 the test to feed their families healthy meals. And 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. But 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, " We will consider whether further action is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
needed." You bet it is, my Lords. I beg to move. The question is that this motion
be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be agreed to. I'm extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for that
introduction. She was a wonderful chairman, she had some difficulties
to handle, some internal tensions.
But she managed to bring it through and we produced a wonderful report. A bit like the one that Lord Krebs produced previously, which again a
10:20
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
whole range of recommendations, but not many of them implemented at the
time. I came to the committee with some reluctance, as the clerk Stuart
some reluctance, as the clerk Stuart now, because I felt I spent many
now, because I felt I spent many years proving, 20 years ago doing so much work on the select committees, and so little was implemented. And I
and so little was implemented. And I came back reluctantly but I have a very strong interest, as most of the House knows, in sugar, addiction to
sugar, and how we should be addressing it and trying to change it.
I told her we could go, she is going to have a rough morning this
morning, I can start by expressing some gratitude to her and also to our financial secretary, Lord
Spencer Livermore. Because in the
October budget, he did in fact, the Government did make a statement to extend the range of the levy on a
wider front then we have previously.
Not a great deal... But it was a move in the right direction. So one of our recommendations, our principal one, has been ultimately
addressed already, but very partially indeed.
I expect it is not going to be addressed are great deal
further forward on a wider basis and I think we have to deal with the reality and the changing circumstances in which we find
ourselves. I want to speak and say that the levy should be extended but
I know the government will find it
very difficult. -- The softer and levy. If we get into a war with the Americans on trade and we have three Italianate, can I just suggested
them that we have tariffs on 25 % of
a few of the American products that are causing us difficulty, cola,
coke, Pepsi, KFC, big Macs, you name
them, many of these are responsible for the excess calories which we consume.
-- If we have to retaliate.
That is Brobbey not likely to happen but I don't think we'll be... I want to look at the issues where the government has given indications they are trying to do something.
They talked about measuring, we have had a scheme for weighing and
measuring children since 2008. We now find our children are heavier, notwithstanding doing that, but the
government has indicated recently that it intends to extend this to
all adults and doctors will be required to weigh and measure people.
I have no objection to that,
will have great deal of... But I
expect will be ending up with an indication that people are still getting heavier. Unless we take action. And the action I suggest we
take is that we have a look at what has been happening with the children
or not happening with the children. Whether has not been any follow-
through. We children defined as being overweight. And here I thank the people who gave us a great two
days and we got down to the nitty- gritty on some of the issues.
We had
in the public health officials about the great difficulties they had, where they had identify children who are overweight, how there were
problems with the parents and how we find a way through it. To take action with the children. Can I
suggest we spend some time looking
at AI. Children use technology in a way that we don't. And I think that
may be... For us. And if, for example, those of you look at
ChatGPT or alternatives will know what facilities and availabilities
is coming online.
It is not all negative that comes with AI. That could possibly be used by the way forward. Also we should look to try
and bring people together in groups, in a way that we don't do at the moment. Either with children but we
should do it with adult -- widow with children but maybe we should do
with adults. I come from the 12 step
program... I was told at 40th I did not stop drinking I would die and I went on a program which was also a program that costs nothing and I
been it for 43 years and I'm still
here.
And that has helped me also as a 12 step program, on addressing my
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 diabetes, type two, and I did a 12 step program, entirely free
of charge and I got myself back down and I avoided having to take the
tablets and the injections. So hope we will have a look at the 12 step programs, the alternative programs that are available and that the
should be put through social prescribing, which I think we are failing to use the full advantage.
failing to use the full advantage.
On the new food strategy, I share
Lady Walmsley's view on that unhappiness. I think we should have
the food manufacturing industry involved because at the end of the day, they are still going to be there, we have to find ways of doing
business with them. My complaint is that we have not got one of the 10 big worldwide manufacturers on the
committee at all. Why haven't we got with the people who we need to
engage? Nestle, for example, who spend so much time the children's food...
Why are they not involved? I would ask the Minister if he could
have a look at how we can bring in even bigger players than we have so
far. I think the solution the Government will light on eventually
Government will light on eventually
will be the anti-obesity drugs. It is the way the government invariably goes, I regret that is the case but I suspect it is going to be. I'm
running out of time, finally I just want to say we did not look at...
In our review, alcohol is a major contributor of obesity and we did
not have the time to do that and I hope that when we come back, we will spend some time and in due course
will be looking at the anti-obesity drugs, which will be costing a fortune and will be in widespread
use.
10:26
Baroness Browning (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Always a pleasure to follow Lord
Brooke and like him, I too want to pay tribute to our chair, Baroness Walmsley. Such an excellent chair of
what was really both very interesting and a very worrying
committee to serve on. Food, diet, obesity. Today I just want to focus
mainly on food. Food insecurity in
particular. We know that food insecurity is really about the
affordability and the accessibility
of food. And if that is not present, then it is the driver of unhealthy
diets.
And about our relationship as human beings with food and I'm not
talking about packets, tinned, what comes out of the freezer, cooking
it. It is about eating it, it is
about... Food. It is sometimes about growing food, about shopping for food, all of that. It is part of the human condition. But I'm talking
here about real food. Chapter 7 of our report says food insecurity is
an urgent problem. And of course the poorer people are, the more the
problem is, that adds to this
agency.
And in the Government's response, particularly to chapter 7, they talk about the strategy which
has already been mentioned. And it states on page 5 of their response to our report that 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. So,
today I would like to hear from the Minister more about this strategy. We have had 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 is going to make sure that what it
has asked this ball to do is what comes out at the other end. -- This board. Cross departmental because this whole subject involves more than just one department but led by
DEFRA.
Now the board is in place,
the Government should know by now will the strategy encourage more UK
grown and produced food in its work?
Will they look at that? Is that one of the objectives of the strategy? And I say that not out of some
quirky old-fashioned nationalism, but as a former agriculture
minister, as somebody who represented a truly agricultural scene for 18 years. And also as a
former home economist, I have taught many people, including many adults, to cook in my time.
I would really
like to know, are we going to have the availability of the ingredients,
the products that we all would benefit from if they were grown
closer to home, Damer grown the other side of the world? Mike Dan they were grown. And also will this
strategy encourage both children and
adult communities to grow the food they can 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
very food that they need throughout
the course of their lives? We know many schools, for example, support gardening and growing things, which
helps to introduce children in our most positive way to food that will
And will the strategy improve the populations understanding of basic nutrients in food so that people
know what to look for when they are shopping? Well they understand the labelling? Are all these things that
are small in their way but which contributes to the way in which people address food and the way in
which they see the food that appears in their kitchens and, of course, I
am with the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say it is the teaching of cookery going to be
improved in the schools.
In a former
existence of former president of the Institute of home economics, I campaigned very hard for many years
with persuasions to encourage this
basic science in schools because it is a science. And it is so essential. Will the strategy mean
that from childhood to adulthood the populations relationship with food
improves to the extent that it once again becomes an essential life skill that is both enjoyable,
healthy, and accessible. And if the
Minister cannot say exactly what she thinks will come out of the end of the strategy, can she at least share
with us the timescale? The word soon was used in a January response from
the Minister's response.
How soon is
soon? And how would the strategy be monitored? Who will do this? And
will any legislation be needed at the term and be given priority for
Parliamentary time? There are recommendations for legislation in our report, but if the
recommendation for legislation comes from the strategy, will that be
given priority? I wish the Minister well with this and I know she will
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be listening to what we have to say today. I join other noble Lords in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I join other noble Lords in thanking our excellent Chair of this enquiry, Baroness Walmsley. And I
10:33
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
enquiry, Baroness Walmsley. And I also thank her for her absolutely outstanding introduction in this
debate. I also express angst our specialist adviser Professor Martin
White from Cambridge University who kept us on the straight hand narrow as well as our Clerk and policy
analysts. I should declare an interest, first I Chair for the
world Cancer research fund their global expert panel that reviews the scientific evidence for links
between diet, obesity, and cancer risk. And secondly I am a scientific
to Marks & Spencer.
Like the Noble Lady Baroness Lady Walmsley I am
puzzled. The Government agrees with our diagnosis of the problem. This
in our response to the problem that people are eating too much calorie dense highly palatable food, commonly known as H SFS, I felt,
salt sugar, and as a result obesity rates have rocketed in recent
decades. They go on to say this rising obesity has had effects on
health, well-being, and the economy. And they also say there is a need to reshape the food environment that
has been an inconstant cause or factor for the rise in obesity.
I read the introductory paragraphs of the Government response I was ready to enjoy learning that having agreed
with our diagnosis they would also agree with our proposed solutions.
The solutions were based on many months of hard graft and over 1,000 pages of written evidence from
expert. But instead the Government,
as we have already heard, rejected nearly all of our recommendations, as indeed they did reject the recommendations of the enquiry that
I chaired a furious on food poverty, health, and the environment.
There were, as the noble Baroness has
mentioned, some honourable exceptions. These included the policies inherited from the previous
Government, restrictions on promotion and advertising of junkfood, as well as the welcome
routing of the drinks industry levy announced in the Autumn Budget. But
apart from these we got rather vague
hand weaving about the health and prevention instead of treatment and the new DEFRA led food strategy. For nearly all of our recommendation we
got answers such as it is all terribly placated.
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 enquiry
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 62 of our report where we referred to research from Cambridge University showing that about 700 policies to tackle obesity have failed because they were based
on individual responsibility of voluntary measures.
I would like to ask the noble Baroness the Minister
does she disagree with the conclusions of this Cambridge University research? And if so, why?
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.
And the tobacco and vapour spill announced this week
will further tighten the regulatory screw. I know that 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 it is not
accepted for risk for change, what is the government's plan? I could go
on at great length with a simple straightforward answer to this
question that might be most welcome, however before I finish I want to see if you were devout ultra
processed food.
As the Noble Lord mentioned there were some disagreements in our committee and
our Chair handled those disagreements very skilfully. One of
them was about the question of 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. I?
Because three reasons. First, as Christman Telecom 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 that we were referred to, a
panel of experts agreed on only
4/231 foods that 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. And of course that evidence-based may
change. Third, most is also HS F FF.
Most of those foods are not HS FF according to some experts, including things such as oatmeal, vegan sausages, wholemeal bread from the
supermarket, and prepackaged cooked vegetables.
Do we really want to suggest that public these foods are
dangerous to eat? No. Let's concentrate on HFSS where the
evidence for Hamas robust and the definition is already used in
regulation.
10:38
The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
It was a privilege to serve on
the committee and I would also like to thank our chairman, Professor
Martin White, Stuart Stoner and the whole team. Of all the many
committee reports on which I have been involved, this one is unique.
None have been so welcome and reported on outside this House, yet received such a negative response
from Government. We made several important recommendations on the
important recommendations on the
policy, but I want to thank and focus most of my remarks on ultra processed food.
Our intention to the difficulties encountered by the
classification of UPS of the Noble
Lord has said, we note that some processed foods, particularly ultra processed ones are more harmful than
others, but this is less equipped. Buying food that is good for you is
often difficult and requires time, especially for those on low incomes. And in this there is a huge amount
of confusion and misinformation propagated by the food
manufacturers. Generally, the more healthy the packet tells you the food is, the more cautious you need
to be most most food is processed to some degree.
It is the amount of processing that is relevant as to
how much of a health risk it would be. What we as consumers need to
know is the damaging, the damaged
process of the food, it can be used to include additives and more common
ingredients or to try to avoid food with those in them, so reading the
label is a society if one does not understand what all of those values mean. Processing can alter the
viability of food from any foods are
processed to make them hyper palatable which encourages us to buy even more of them and 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 Polly ability, and the energy intake are critical to
assessing the health risk. The science team led by Professor Kim
Specter together with Doctor Fedor
Rita Amati, a nutritionist nutrition
topic leader have found that 38% of foods they analysed are both energy
dense and hyper palatable. This reinforces our call for clearer,
more successful information about making healthier choices when buying processed foods.
My Noble Friend
earnest burning will welcome the news announced this morning on the
development of those processed risk currently being tested and validated. It is very good news for
us also. It will help us to navigate the often confusing landscape of
processed and ultra processed food to better understand the health risks associated with their
consumption. The plan for the future
is that by photographing the food one will within seconds know whether
there is no health risk or whether that health risk is low, medium or high.
That would start to enable us
as consumers to choose a better diet. Thank goodness for those in the private sector who are doing
something to help, because the Government is doing very little. No
the food manufacturers. They did not
want to be asked difficult questions by the committee, so refused to attend. Chief Executive of the Food
& Drink Federation responded to our
reports, saying that if UPF or processing raised concerns and I quote industry would, of course, act
quickly.
My response to her is the
other one has got bells on. Evidence there is a plenty and there has been even more since the publication of
our report. Most of the industry have done the bare minimum. Let
there be no understanding that food manufacturers are in it for profit,
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 to
your health is done in the process.
The noble Baroness the Minister
tells us a smooth UK is a pillar of the Government health mission to help us stay healthier for longer and forms part of its Plan for
Change, focusing on the crucial role
prevention can make in putting the witness and making the NHS think for
the future. Our report calls obesity has been called the main preventable cause of cancer in women, by 2043.
The total annual economic cost of
overweight and obesity for the UK is 98 billion.
That is nearly 4% of GDP
and about 350% more than tobacco
costs us. If stopping smoking was a
key pillar in the government's health mission, how much more important is it good affordable diet
at reducing obesity? That should be a strength of the Government. The
Secretary of State has advocated for the receipt on the steamroller which he mentioned would in opposition he would revert the food industry and
block reforms. He is now the man
busily waving the green flag.
The Government are neglecting us all, but in particular women, infants and
children.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I am grateful also to the members
of the food and diet and obesity committee who wrote the report. I think it was excellent, but it does paint a picture that this country
10:45
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
paint a picture that this country has a real problem with food. As has already been instated in the chamber, the prevalence of cheap and healthy foods filled with sugar,
salt, and fat, have fuelled an
obesity epidemic and causes real damage to individuals health.
Damaging also the NHS and, according to a Frontier economics report, obesity -related illnesses cost £6.5
billion per yer. It also damages the
UK economy. As the Baroness Walmsley has said, there has been over 700 proposed policies over the years
proposed policies over the years
proposed policies over the years
700, none worked.
Healthy foods have become a luxury for many in this
country, it has been -- become something some people cannot afford. There is a very real and increasing health gap between the richest and
the poorest. We are reliant on the good faith of the food industry for
Puttalam to voluntarily reformulate their products, we have told people they must see healthier this lays
bare our findings. -- For far too
long. I'll failings and it demands a radical shift in our policy. We must
simply change the food landscape.
Encourage companies to produce healthier food, focus on children and ensure all are able to access a
healthy diet. The levy on sugary
drinks cause sizeable reductions in sugar levels and had a greater effect on the health of the nation
than could possibly have been achieved by a voluntary measure. So can I add my voice to the mandatory
regulations lobby? Mandatory reef formations... Re-formulations 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
including the industry. But for many
people in this country, eating healthily is simply not an option. It would be really very problematic
I fear to reform the food industry, potentially increasing the price of unhealthy food, without making
healthier alternatives available to all. And 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 that was recently published by NICE. It will undoubtably 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 compared to children from the least deprived areas.
Families in poverty face real difficulties accessing enough healthy food for the children to meet the advised nutritional
guidance on fruit and veg.
It is expensive. Many schoolchildren face
food insecurity and I have many tales from my time as an MP to illustrate just how desperate it can
be, with children taking it in turns to eat on school nights. Families
who work who live in temporary
accommodation, some of whom live in hotels, have got simply no access to cookers, to sinks, to bridges, that
others who have access to fridges and cookers may not have cooking equipment because they have had to
relinquish it in their many moves through temporary accommodation and
they simply hadto 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 program for
another year. It is an absolute lifeline for so many families. I hope the Spending Review will see multi-year guaranteed funding for
the program. Wealth inequalities in this country have grown over the
last decade. Now we see 24 % of
schoolchildren 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 the handing for free school meals. -- In the funding. The report states that the
current funding result in many schools being unable to meet the Government food standards or provide a healthy meal to children and its
detailed cases where recipients of free school meals were only able to afford a fried or battered chicken
in a flimsy wrap or a white van. No
source, no salad, no fruit. -- White one.
Without proper enforcement, the school food standards are not worth
the paper they are written on. Sharon Hudson MP, a good friend of
mine, has been an unremitting campaign of universal school meals. She believes free school meals would be a significant answer to some of
the issues within this report and I think she is absolutely right. They
can be a game changer. But they can only be a game changer when it is done right. Because there is no
incentive the caterers to serve healthy nutritious and tasty food at lunchtime, especially when cost
pressures mean that the quality of the food and the portions of the
food are being compromised.
There is so much more to be said and I have
run out of time. Can I just say I absolutely know that this government has the will, the talent and the
drive to meet the health challenges of inequalities, to transform our food environment and to tackle the
root causes of obesity and poverty. And I look forward to their further reports in the future.
10:51
Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the chair and all the committee members for their
excellent report. But while the report is strong, the Government's
response is we. -- 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 our
children who are paying the price, as many noble Lords have raised
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, one in three. These are just not numbers, they are our children's lives. In the UK, we are
also the highest obesity rates in
the developed world. Only USA and Brazil outstrips us. In France, the
difference is stark.
There, food is
something to be cherished. The schools offer children a proper
meal. Three course meal, with fruits and vegetables. Families still cook
from scratch, shop for fresh
ingredients, eat together and -- at set times. Meals are moments of
connection and enjoyment, not something to be 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,
snacking constantly, without sitting
down to enjoy a meal.
People often ask me how do I manage to keep my weight and the truth is simple, I
was raised to eat well. My
parents... Sorry... To rely on foods -- fruit and vegetables, not hinder an ultra-processed food. My parents were actually 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 but it
is also what we eat and how we eat it.
But this is not about blaming individuals, it is 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
cost the NHS over 19 billion a year
and the wider economy even more. And yet, the government's response lacks ambition and urgency. It leans heavily on voluntary measures, with
heavily on voluntary measures, with
no serious regulatory livers -- levers. We need a national Food
Strategy that puts health first.
We also need to change our food
culture, support local markets. In France, local markets offer fresh
products from the region... I have
products from the region... I have
lost everything. Sorry. And even in every city and villages, you have
markets, even in Paris, you have 80 street markets. And they are
operating three days a week. And
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 ring
their product directly to shops, as they do in France? Prevention alone
is no longer enough.
We must invest also in weight services, like
therapies like GLP. But, as noble
Lords have mentioned before, they may be helpful in extreme case, but
we do not know the long-term effects. And as Baroness Walmsley
pointed out, it is still a very expensive way to treat people. Isn't
it better to concentrate on food and what we eat and educate? Fast food
makes you hungry, it does not quench your hunger. And it is time to
tackle junk food.
So my Lords, will the noble Baroness the Minister tell
this House what step her government will take to support our farmers and
work with them to improve our
children's wellbeing? Instead of imposing Inheritance Tax, would it
not be better to work with them to
tackle this issue?
10:57
Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, I too would like to congratulate my noble friend,
Baroness Walmsley, both on her extremely powerful speech this
morning, as well as her excellent chairing of the committee. It was a genuine pleasure to serve on the committee and to learn a lot.
Anybody who knows my noble friend will know that she is both firm and
fair as a Chair and also has a
tremendous grasp of the detail. She has made some extremely powerful points this morning and I do hope
that the noble Lady the Minister will respond in a more encouraging
way than appeared evident in the official and hugely disappointing government response to this report.
I would also like to place on record my personal thanks to the
secretariat of the committee and in particular to Stuart and Lucy, who
are truly exceptional. My Lords, 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 home-made,
wholesome, if slightly bland. It was an era, as a very 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 outlet began to multiply in our cities. As a
student, I clearly remember always feeling strangely dissatisfied after
eating a McDonald's burger, although 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 the 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. In the 1970s and 80s, ultra-processed food might have
been an occasional treat, nowadays, tragically in some parts of the UK, it now makes up to 80 % of people's
diets. We are all faced with an
enormous choice of food outlets, from takeaways to supermarkets, delivery and rates, on a daily
basis, children in particular are bombarded 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
foods. The statistics are stark and becoming worse. In the UK, over 20 % of children are already too heavy
and around 10 % are already obese by
the time 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, are 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.
And the mother no doubt thought she was giving her child a healthy option. Just one of those sachets
contains the recommended daily allowance of sugar or an adult. It
is surely wrong that our shops can sell baby food and drinks that are
packed full of sugar but have no traffic light warning or label on
them.
-- For an adult. The same applies to so-called follow-on and
growing up milk. For example, a one or two Euro consuming Alpo Sawyer
growing up milk, which states that it is low in sugars on the pack, with typically be consuming over
three times the recommended maximum total daily sugars intake from that
Does the Minister not agree that warning bells on sugar content on
children's products are urgently
needed? Provision of a healthy school meal as Baroness Brown indicated so very powerfully the
case, provision of a healthy school meal in the early years can have an extremely positive impact, both in
behaviour and concentration in class.
This can also encourage
healthy eating and good nutritional habits at a young age. A healthy nutritious hot meal is nearly always
going to be healthier than a packed lunch option which is often full of
ultra processed products. And a nine-year-old friend of mine's daughter, Olivia, recently told me
daughter, Olivia, recently told me
she was deeply concerned some of her schoolmates, what they were eating on a daily basis at school. During the public hearings for this
committee, we had from the experiences of many young people who really do care about these issues.
There have been issues surrounding
cuts and the provision of school meals. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is the government's plan regarding
school meals in her concluding remarks. The government's responses
are or indeed lack of response to the concrete and instructive suggestions on children, young
people, infants, and school meals
contained in chapter 6 /7 of this report are deeply disappointing.
Investing in health start should make sound economic sense as Opal
that noble Lords have said.
To quote from a paediatrician from the Royal, obesity is the greatest health crisis on the planet and it often
starts with childhood. We need to
take action and firm action now. take action and firm action now.
11:03
Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I follow the noble Baroness and I agree with absolutely everywhere that she said and I also have had
the great pleasure of being in this chaired footlights genuinely been on
a jury of what is being shared, someone taking evidence and taking
notes and at the end of it I think we were all informed pretty much we
were all facing the same direction and it was fairly straightforward. I would just like to use my few
minutes to talk about one of our recommendations which was about the
extent to which the industry is involved in the policy of food at the moment.
Take, for instance of
the advisory commission on nutrition. It is the main advisory
to the Government and you would think it would be unbiased but you
would be wrong. Of the 16 members 14 of them directly or indirectly take
money from the industry. I declare my interest but in fact if you take
money, I believe that it changes minds. The statement on ultra processed food concluded the
associations between a high UPF consumption in the first count was,
I quote, concerning.
It is well known that we argued a bit during the committee about it but I would
urge the Noble Lord because he is so highly respected to just look at the
overwhelming weight of evidence and stop moving around the edges as to
whether this is HP SS or UPF. The burden is what we are eating, what
our children are eating, is bad for us and it is making us fat and it is making a sale and I think we should all combine forces to understand
that very simple fact.
Food policy, I believe, has always remained
without the industry being in the room because we have two different names. They want to make money, we
want to make people well. I think it is very interesting to note that when George Osborne imposed the
sugar tax he made it completely on his own. I do not mean literally on his own but he had a tight team of civil servants and advisers and went
civil servants and advisers and went
out and told the industry, so I can elect many, have been interested to see the newly created advisory.
There are 16 members and seven members represent the face of big
food. The press release states that this will help set the ambition and
the food ambition is to sell a lot more. Indeed one of the shocking
things we heard came from one of the young people on the team that when
he buys bus tickets to get himself to school on that reverse it says free chips if you come into
McDonald's with this but ticket. I cannot believe that they are really after our help.
Yes, it has got some
sterling people, it has got the CEO for the food foundation, Susan Jones, I am glad they are there. It
can they hold the line against the
lobbying from the green call, Kerry foods, McCains, Sainsbury's, in-line
from their website it says we have identified many opportunities for
the value of light processing and bespoke manufacture to make our
customers life easier. Is that what we want in our food strategy? We must, of course, wait and see, but
industry must not be allowed to hobble itself by sitting alongside
people like that.
Alongside the board of course we have the Food & Drink Federation who played a very shadowy role within the whole setup.
Baroness Jenkin's and I put this notion for this committee forward and was so pleased when we got it we
went to a meeting of an unveiling of the new strategy but I do not know
how much the strategy is going to be involved in food strategy. Their idea was that all healthy foods across the country should have a new label. Feel better. This, they
think, can be plastered onto every packet of salad or brown rice or unprocessed meat and then the
British public would happily change their ways, so in other words it is a real win for the industry because
you do not have to label anything
that is not quite so good.
They are the only corporate reps, I think that they offered to come to our committee, but it is worth demand us
noting that investors know they have
a duty to cut the systemic risks they are building in their systems. Yesterday I was talking to Sophie Lawrence and she said that the
investment coalition and food policy is calling now for greater transparency around lobbying activities by the food industry. She
said that in the last Government
this is January 22 to June 24, at DEFRA, Ministers met with food businesses and their trade
associations 1408 times.
That is 40
more times than was met with the food NGOs and the people like
Baroness Walmsley who most want to put the results of her report in
front of them. The food strategy, of course, is coming, and we look forward to it. But what was wrong with the strategy that Henry built?
It seemed to me that it was an excellent strategy and when it was published, Government said of its recommendations it only committed to
do four of them and, quite frankly,
they have been delayed.
As the Noble Lord said that response to our report has been equally weak, but I
would also recommend that the Minister, when she steps forward to
help with food strategy and taken on board that she spent some time talking to the food farming and countryside commission with setting
up citizens juries. There is no
point in Lizzie being made of it does not actually change as things happen on the street. You want to be able to wherever you live, however much you earn, whether you are
disabled or not, you want to be able to walk to a shop that is going to be able to provide, affordable food
for you and your family.
If you went up in food debt, that is not going to work. People really want this to
happen. Polling shows that people really care and they are heartbroken by the quality of some school meals
by the adverts.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Many in this chamber have been involved in the highly competitive process of the at hoc select committees. Most applicants are
committees. Most applicants are disappointed, so run as boycott and I were thrilled when our proposal
I were thrilled when our proposal got over the line. Both she and I had been increasingly concerned about the unsustainable rise in
obesity, especially in children. Indeed, Chair for the centre of
Indeed, Chair for the centre of childhood obesity in 2017 which called for urgent Government action
called for urgent Government action and since then there have been numerous other reports including the Government commission National Food
Strategy hemmed so Emily by Henry Dimbleby and almost no action as the situation deteriorated further.
That
was a wake-up call for me and we heard that this report debated today would wake up others, especially
Government. I remember the first
meeting where we all agreed that this must not be yet another committee that produced yet another report which languished on the
shelves gathering dust. With the Digital Equipment. We were led by
Baroness Hunt Lee who not only child 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 of Lord's and she has been a terrier since.
Indeed I
am tempted to say that I agree with every word. I also would like to pay
tribute to the committee staff. All were excellent, but we were especially lucky with our clocks,
Lucy, the policy analyst, and the 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. In particular, Doctor Chris van token and Henry Dimbleby who
came as early witnesses. I had read both of 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 about expectations about the Government response were
unrealistic, but to say that we had been underwhelmed and disappointed would be an understatement. Quite
frankly, just acknowledging the issues and committing to seeing through some of the existing
11:12
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
policies was not really good enough. As we pointed out, the need for further research into ultra-
further research into ultra- processed foods was not to be an excuse for inaction, and yet that
excuse for inaction, and yet that appears to be the position. I believe the Government will regret
believe the Government will regret this lack of urgency as had many former foreign Ministers in positions of responsibility before
them. Henry Dimbleby's most recent publication, nourishing Britain, a political manual for improving the
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 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 and 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 views 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
the Minister but essentially
In the way of policy. There is no room to let this happen today. And nor do you have to. Politics can work. Nourishing Britain contains excellent examples of how the
Minister met the politics work for some of the boldest policies date, including the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Insights provided by those that had been in the shop and a fascinating stop Alan Johnson said
we took the kiss out of David Cameron in one of the early PMQs.
He
was new. He was unprepared to see anything to Tony Blair and said it was wrong for chocolate to be around
the tills. He was absolutely right. Alan Johnson also admitted we were pondering a sugar tax but we were
never really bold enough to do it. Whilst Boris Johnson pointed out that one pound in every three of
Government spending is on the NHS, and there is 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 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
health of our people is the
foundation of our future prosperity. As the first Labour Government since then, I asked the Noble Lady to 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 citizens manifesto and a call for a courageous public leadership and for
Government to move fast and fix things. Like the interviewees who regretted their lack of boldness and
bravery, I sure she, and the secretary of state, will not want to
look back and think in George Osborne's words, what is the point of occupying Number Ten or number 11
of occupying Number Ten or number 11
11:15
Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
It is great honour to follow my
noble friend, who is talking about
these issues before it became fashionable... And thank you to the chair and all those who stood on the committee and made a very persuasive
case. Can I also draw attention to
my own role as a... To a company that provides treatment and my wife is a non-executive retailer of
Tesco. Many have talked about the impact of obesity on our health,
including noble Lord Browning and
the noble Baroness mayor, as a note of personal test me, I saw how we as country suffered during the pandemic
because 64 % of adults were carrying too much weight and their bodies or we can and cannot fight the virus
properly.
The ONS study on obesity and mortality found emphatic
evidence that the risk of death for coronavirus was double for those who had obesity. That is true in other
realms of health and it is an observation plays out in every
hospital, every GP surgery and every ward in the country every day of the week. Others, including the noble
Lord Krebs, Baroness Boycott and my noble friend, Lord Caithness, have
talked about the damage of all of this to our economy. The evidence is
absolutely overwhelming, I won't go over it all.
Can I just mention the correspondence I had with the OBR,
emphatic and clear arbiters of our future financial security. They
wrote to me that the rising tide of chronic health conditions linked to
obesity is increasing the years 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, and businesses cannot find fit workforce and our communities are struggling to cope with obesity -related poor health. Recently can't
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 like fast food outlets near schools. Major civic
organisations like children's
charities and help champions are clamouring for action. Directors for public health, local authority chiefs and NHS chiefs publish
compelling evidence of harm, thoughtful recommendations for change and alarm about the cost of exciting expensive obesity
treatments.
Countries like 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 has been seen by the influence of Robert Kennedy on the presidential election
and his appointment as Secretary of State for health, was 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
the 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 substance to feed our people. Companies like Nestle,
Mondelez and Coco locally, Mars, Brenda and others are making billions of pounds of profit, their
CEOs make tens of millions of pounds each year and 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 the cardiovascular MSK and consequential mental health problems associated
with obesity.
The junk food giant
should be regarded as a leech on our public finances. A free rider that is not paying for the externalities they create and a threat to both our
national security and to our public
finances. That is why the Government response is so disappointing. It
calls for, "Coordination and collaboration, which is essential" I just don't agree. What we need are
hard regulatory guardrails. We need to put health promotion at the centre of the Food standards authority priorities. We need fiscal
intervention starting with sugar tax.
We need a monopoly investigation by the CMA. And we need to start taking the junk food
industry out of the conversation, as we have done with the tobacco industry and we should do with the
pornography industry. The points made by the noble Baroness, Baroness Boycott, on that 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
Krebs said. 80 years after it was proven that's a great skill, we still have 13 % of the country still
smoking.
The micro intervention approach does not work the business,
which have a fiduciary obligation to maximise their profit. As a result, waste huge amounts of shareholder
value in creative energy battling finds and redtape. And it is not
working for our NHS, our economy or our national security. Instead, we need a clear and emphatic approach which protects the consumer and
allows the industry to survive. Collaboration with today's junk food industry is just not going to get us
**** Possible New Speaker ****
there. I listen to all the oral evidence that this inquiry was making it into a podcast. It was shocking,
11:21
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
depressing and inspiring. The shocking we have already heard, the statistics, the numbers of people suffering, the cost to the NHS, the
cost to the economy that I related illnesses keeping people out of work. The depressing part of the evidence was hearing a repeated
failures to even slow down the train wreck. The reason we have an obesity
problem now compared to 40 years ago is because food has changed, not asked, our willpower or our
genetics. The challenge then is how we reduce the amount of unhealthy food and drink we all consume.
That
is how we will eliminate these diet -related illnesses. And yet the aims
of the Government's Food Strategy, if you read them, don't mention reducing unhealthy food in our diet
at all. Only making healthy foods more affordable and accessible. This in itself is not going to make the
difference we need to see. It is pretty clear what healthy food and drink looks like. People can try to
split hairs and shorelines, but we do all know it. Whole foods,
variety, minimal processing, less meat, lower salt, fat, sugar.
And we
all know what unhealthy food looks like. So why are tweeting the good
stuff and instead the bad stuff? --
Are we not eating the good stuff. In most of our day-to-day lives, we do not have the time, money or
resources to cook fresh wholefood ingredients for every meal everyday. The inquiry heard how kitchen equipment, the cost of heating and
oven, the food storage and reparation are prohibitive to many and how quickly most fresh ingredients and freshly made foods
go, risking expensive waste.
Industrial chain has grown into this
space, producing ready to eat longline booths at affordable prices. But 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. It is around
profitability and being profitable,
then marketed to us aggressively. And the multi employee you are, the more financially poor you are, the
more they market it to. -- The more time poor you are.
It sits alongside the terrible impact on the
environment, on animal welfare and farmers livelihood. Surely then the
Government strategy should be asking
how can we efficiently produce and distribute freshly made meals, ideally from mainly British grown ingredients, to replace as much as
possible of the industrial stuff? And from listening to the evidence to the inquiry, I know where I would
start. Where do unknown number of
people... Eat at once, all in one place, allowing relatively easy calculation of how much fresh food needs to be prepared to minimise
wastage and transport? Schools.
Where it is also very much-needed.
The committee had held not only are nearly one in four of our children
clinically obese by age 10, they are stunted by malnutrition. UK children are up to nine centimetres shorter
than their peers in northern and eastern Europe. But here we come to
where the committee evidence was inspiring. 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 in the local community.
-- that it they could do
this within the current authority finances and there is evidence that
it reduces obesity. There are a myriad of other innovative ways to
get fresh produce from our farms to our forks with as little in between
as possible. This is what little businesses excel at. The committee
businesses excel at. The committee
heard about many but last week my depression return. The Government announced the advisory board for its Food Strategy, that strategy that does not mention reducing unhealthy
food.
On the board is one solitary farmer. No one who cooks fresh food, no one who is an expert in school
meal provision, 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 impact of our food system on the environment. Another of the aims, economic
Another of the aims, economic
growth. Economic growth could mean the encouragement of innovative local and community SMEs and family farms, British businesses who employ
locally and supply locally.
No. The border almost all 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 it aims to ensure,
" That our largest manufacturing sector can realise its potential for
economic growth". Manufacturing. That is how this Government sees
food. Not in terms of growing, not preparing, not cooking, not health, body, environment, manufacturing.
That is the sort of thing my thinking that is because successive governments to bail citizens of the
UK, failed to stop the ever- increasing illnesses from poor food.
-- Failed citizens. Why does the Government strategy not consider reducing unhealthy food in our diet
as a priority? If it does, why doesn't it say that? How would the
members of the advisory committee chosen Which? 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 on the group,
despite that being a stated priority? Are the minutes of the meetings going to be made publicly
available? And others going contain agreement on key targets to be read on reducing diet -related health
problems as well as on biodiversity, so we can be sure the strategy is focused on the actual outcomes we
all want to see? And IN with a plea,
please listen back to the evidence given to this inquiry, don't let all
those inspiring people down by making the same mistakes we have made decade over decade, not tackling the real problem,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
industrialised food. -- I end with a plea. I will start by saying I worked for Mars 12 years and I have a
11:28
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
for Mars 12 years and I have a pension, so as an interest I can declare there. Unconscious a lot of
the discussion today is about food processors, not producers, but I have spotted that the noble Baroness Battersea's speech in later so I
Battersea's speech in later so I
spoke sure make other the issue of food production in the first place. I am conscious. I think one of the
things that struck me about this report is it seems that only way to try and get changes to regulation,
taxes, strategies.
I can genuinely say, in the three different roles I held at Cabinet level, working at
DWP we worked with health, we worked with DEFRA on the Food Strategy. We
worked on the fact of increasing
Healthy Start, people asked it would be online, we got it online in terms of applications. This is all about how we can try and get habits and
has orally been referred to today, starting young is a key element of that and in terms of whether at
schools.
I would go further and thinking about what Baroness Randerson Overton said, I think
there is a lot here about local government. Not only because the health workers are there and also in terms of planning permission, which
has been further strengthened last December in terms of really one of the key drivers is not necessarily
what is at home but is actually what
you purchase, particularly from fast food outlets. I think that is where a lot of focus should really be
increasingly driven.
In terms of looking through... Sorry, another
element I had thought of, I remember as a student I used to go down from
my oral evidence to the market to get the cheap edge but that was the
way of how can councils also promote markets, not just the farmers markets that now seem to be very
niche that actually perhaps doing innovative things like removing
business rates and similar. In order to get that fresh food habit being part of regular shop, not just
travelling to your supermarket.
One of the things the report refers
regularly is the 2021 National Food Strategy. I know Henry Dimbleby was commissioned by Michael Gove to provide evidence to this, it
somewhat mushroomed and went way beyond its remit and people referred
to as the National Food Strategy. I should point out it was never actually adopted by the government at all. However, it did bring out a
lot of important issues and I appreciate that Henry not only is
charming but is indeed passionate about this particular interest.
Building on the work he had done in
actually improving school meal standards and other work he has done. The strategy was produced in
June 22 and is now to be updated. But I think one of the things in terms of thinking processes, my
Lordships may not be aware of the relationships that were forged particularly during COVID with the
food resilience industry forum. And frankly it was a partnership between government and the food processors
that being aligned action kept food on the shelves in a way that people
could get fed during the challenges that were faced at that time and to some extent during Ukraine a little
some extent during Ukraine a little
But fast forward I would recommend that my Lordships read the article in The Times today which particularly talks about this issue
and the challenge of how, in effect, to be candid, the NOVA classification has been not only, I
do not believe it is in the balance like the committee has suggested, I think it has actually been
discredited in terms of really being
effective in its classifications.
I think something that gave a starting
point is the good thing from the classification and I think that is why the important work still needs
to continue, if there is more research that needs to be done I think that would be able come move by the Government. In terms of thinking about the needs of families
we have to remember about that cost of living challenge that people face. When food inflation was
rising, we had food companies admitting in private that their
policies are pursuing net 0 x 20 30
were definitely increasing the cost of food to families right across the country and when we challenge them about changing that while we had this national emergency, quite
simply the answer was no.
That was
the concern to me and we appreciated
trying to legislate to change that, or some new strategy simply it would just add to a very long list and as a consequence going into this as I
did I was accused of all sorts of things at the time, despite the fact
that we had a series of strategies, so we sat down, looked at the impact assessments of all the different
legislation and tried to prioritise which was made to make the most difference.
That is why at the cost
of living crisis by one get one
free, banning, was not necessarily having imaginal impact, but by
focusing, and I think hopefully the updated strategy that we will see later this year I think really could have a systemic approach on trying
to achieve the outcomes that Noble Lord ships seem to be seeking. In
particular, I do agree with one thing on the committee on one specific recommendation that is to
get the food data to conclude their
work.
It is one of the best things I have set up when I was in Government. It is done on a basis of trust, but it should not be delayed.
And so I would encourage the noble minister to work with her colleagues
to make sure that goes through. So, your Lordships, this is definitely,
and speaking as someone who is super obese, you may not believe this but actually 20 years ago I lost eight
stone and I did that by not eating or drinking alcohol. Pretty much that was it.
And I am confident that
it has paid off, far from it. It is not a desire and as I said to the
health officials I am a classic example of failure, all that has
gone wrong. It was not the nutritionist that old me or advised me to eat more carbohydrates or this
is still a journey and believe there are many recommendations and I encourage the strategy by the Government to focus on delivery, not
more strategy or those that actually distract from getting the job done.
11:34
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I would like to congratulate my honourable friend on the way she
chaired the meeting and kept us together, including that extra homework. It was tremendous and I so
enjoyed working with all of the colleagues in the committee and further I would like to thank Stuart
for his leadership from a past point of view and Lucy and our special
adviser because they found fantastic witnesses and ensure that all witnesses turned up when they could not come and got really great
evidence and really it made such a difference to this report.
I am
pleased to join the debate, as I say, as a member of the committee, to discuss a recipe for health. A plan to fix our broken food system
and I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the urgent need for
reform in how we produce market and consume food in the United Kingdom and I think that all should consider
this in terms of how children are not born yet in the society we are
in with a high a lot of obese people.
If a mother is obese, the
child has a high likelihood of being obese as well and we really must
look at that and must encourage mothers and maternal health in every
way to not try to change how they eat. That is for us. Including we have to change something on the
planning system. Which we learned in the committee that there are a lot
of flats now where there is in kitchen and the only thing is a
microwave. It is not for this report, it is not for the food minister but it is to be passed down
with planning laws.
Our food system
is broken. Over 60% of UK adults are overweight or obese. A diet of
related illnesses from consuming our national health and costing them billions each. Let us be clear it is not merely a matter of personal choice. This is a systematic failure
driven by the food industry,
dominated by multinational giants, customers like Nestle, Pepsi-Cola and fast-food chains. As we found
out from Blackpool. The food on the
shelves and high streets, these products packed with sugar and
unhealthy fats make up over half of the average British diet.
One of the
highest rates in Europe. Why? Because they are cheap to produce, they have long shelf lives, how long have they been on the shelves in the
warehouses by the time they get to everybody's home? And they are engineered to keep us coming back
for more. This is not an accident. This is the business model.
Relentless lobbying they have stalled or diluted policies meant to
protect public health. Take the HS FF restricting advertisement, as in
the children, report highlights how
district pushback delayed those measured with groups like the Food & Drink Federation decrying the impact
of innovation and jobs, the result is of a generation stopped before
they could make informed choices.
Supermarkets are complicit, a handful of chains control most of
our grocery markets are determining the consumers. The report finds out
how shelf space is auctioned off to
the highest business as we notice when we go to the supermarket. Processed food brands, while fresh
local produce is sidelined into low income areas, cheaper own brand
ultra processed foods dominate, making healthy eating a luxury many
cannot afford. Projects labelled low-fat or high protein are still
loaded with additives and sugar.
This confusion, the committee ones,
that's unclear advice. Profit is
driving force behind this, this
risks losing the additive edge and with it has voluntary pledges like the field public health responsibility. They have proven
ineffective. Without the framework and enforcement the industry will not change. The report cites that a
not change. The report cites that a
56 billion, -- six -- 6 billion service and the national health services down to obesity. Money that could be found to fund schools and
school meals as we know that schools are not in schools any more, they
are made in different places and those are not good food.
And,
further, the school budget is run by schools sometimes if they need money
for other issues in the school day cut school meals, it is an easy cut without anybody noticing, so we really have to be quite tough about
school meals and what children are be fed in school. The recipe for
health report offers up a whole gold
to fix this mess and it starts with making corporate strongholds. Firstly, we need consideration for
mandatory Reformation targets, forcing companies to cut sugar, salt, fat, and penalties on non-
compliance.
The industry levy cut
sugar and so does by 44%. Imagine that success applied across the food
categories. Second, we must ban all junkfood marketing everywhere. Our children deserve the chance to grow
up with free from corporate mandatory. We must, thirdly, we must
therefore level the playing field, report urge of subsidies for healthy food and 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 schools, as I mentioned earlier,
and then teach children to love real food.
We also should consider teaching going back to teaching
meals in schools.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I too would like to thank the Baroness for introducing this debate
Baroness for introducing this debate and for chairing the committee so expertly. And I would also like to
expertly. And I would also like to thank her for allowing me to attend all the meetings of the committee.
11:41
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
all the meetings of the committee. May I say at the beginning that as far as controversy is concerned I
agree entirely with his views about ultra processed food and there is no
scientific evidence on the cause of
the obesity. And it is strange that
his advice is not acceptable. The next controversy was with Doctor
Chris who addressed the committee
and told the committee that personal responsibility argument is morally, economically, socially, politically,
and scientifically dead and buried.
All such policies must be removed
from the table. Now, to be fair to
him, he was not around during the successful campaign against AIDS in
the 1980s as I was, and the campaign
the 1980s as I was, and the campaign
in Uganda, again, as I was. I was responsible for setting up the hospice for people dying of AIDS in
London and also in Uganda. And the
reason why these campaigns were so
successful is that they were honest.
And 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 do not die of AIDS. Do not die of ignorance. You see if you are
honest with people and explain to
them what is required, each individual person had to take responsibility for himself or
herself. Taking precautions to avoid getting AIDS. And it worked. In fact
in Uganda, they brought down the
program there it was led by the Government, the ABC program, it brought down the incidents of AIDS
from 34% to 4%.
And that was hard data. Can't be argued against.
Perhaps we should be seeing do not die of complacency. Do not die of
obesity. And I have been seeing this
further last 20 years. There is only one cause of obesity and that is
eating too much. No, the 40 million
overweight people in this country, they are not like French geese,
they're not being force-fed to
produce foie gras. No, but they do
have these French geese do have a
right to complain against their masters for force-feeding them.
At the obese people have no such luxury
the 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 try to persuade obese
people that it is not their fault. It is inevitable that they are obese
because they live in an obese
society, says a professor at Oxford.
We really ought to understand that the total cost to the NHS I think
has been mentioned, it is not 5
billion, it is 98 billion in total.
And that is what is wrecking the National Health Service. And if we want to save the National Health
Service, it is no good reforming it yet again. It has been reformed about eight times in the last few
years. None of the reforms have worked. But if you start reducing
demand and getting people to slim
demand and getting people to slim
The obesity epidemic is such a disaster, we just have to do
something about it. And to get people to realise their personal
responsibility.
There is actually only one cause of obesity and one cause only, there are no diseases
that cause obesity. The one cause is eating too much. And it is high time
that that was recognised. We have to dispel the fake propaganda that
people are victims of an obese agenda society. We have to encourage
successful measures like fasting and calorie counting in reducing dietary intake. Of course exercise is
important in terms of our general health. But not in terms of losing
weight.
It does not work very well
indeed. So, the clarion call to the
40 million overweight people is save
yourselves, save the NHS, save £98 billion a year. And find a way that
billion a year. And find a way that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
you want to reduce your weight. My Lords, I too would like to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I too would like to thank Baroness Walmsley for her
thank Baroness Walmsley for her leadership on all of this and the expert committee who have worked and supported her. I would agree with so
much of what has been said today and I'm conscious, with time running short, I don't want to repeat that.
short, I don't want to repeat that. But I do I guess want to focus a bit more on carrot and not just stick.
more on carrot and not just stick.
And I too would pay tribute to
Sharon Hodgson, who has been on many times a one-woman campaign on school
food. We have had others, Jamie Oliver has done a huge amount, 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 not
about our broken food system -- here
a lot about our broken food system,
I would say it was our choices that are broken, not just the food system.
And all roads lead back to education and opportunity. When I
look at countries like Finland and what they have achieved, recently reported yet again to be the
happiest country in the world, 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, again, another of the healthiest
countries on earth. Food much more expensive than it is here. And
there, I think, lies some of the challenge around the culture of our
11:49
Baroness Batters (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
food. We remain slightly lost, whether we are European or American,
whether we are European or American, we have inherited the worst of both
we have inherited the worst of both in many cases. So it will be education, in many ways, that drives us back to a love of food, to
us back to a love of food, to cooking from scratch. And it will need carrot and stick in order to
need carrot and stick in order to achieve it. We have had a long-term
achieve it.
We have had a long-term cheap food policy that has crossed all political parties. And I would
argue at what price have we had that
cheap food policy? We have the most affordable food in Europe, we had
the third most affordable food her income spent 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 what I would put to the Minister are
these two questions, 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 and Japan's success, were treated in the same way in our
treated in the same way in our
curriculum is STEM? -- As STEM? I am also interested to know how the noble Lady the Minister feels the
government food board will join up across departments? For my entire time at the NFU, I failed to get
into Department of Education.
If I going to make success here, we have to have a food board that is truly
joined up and is not competitive within government departments and that is, I fear, what could happen.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, Al debate today has
created much passion and many personal emotions for me, including thinking about Lord Brooke of
thinking about Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and his experience of giving up alcohol 43 years ago. We
giving up alcohol 43 years ago. We have had across the House fairly wide consensus on many measures
wide consensus on many measures which are needed to help reduce the large gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest in this
the richest and the poorest in this country.
To reduce the figure of two
in five children in England leaving primary school above a healthy weight. And to lessen the financial
and other burdens placed on those people who are overweight and the
nation as a whole. But we have also
heard constant frustration about the Government's very limited response
to the excellent report and indeed, I think the flavour of the debate has largely described the response
as pitiful. 30 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 and my weight
11:53
Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
is still going down. But my weight has been an issue throughout my life. A source of depression and it
life. A source of depression and it made me a target for bullying from school onwards. I consider myself
school onwards. I consider myself fortunate to now be classified as overweight, rather than obese. But
overweight, rather than obese. But we cannot just hope for good fortune to reverse the escalating scale of
to reverse the escalating scale of the problem with obesity and its links for people like me to type 2
links for people like me to type 2 diabetes and other health conditions.
In discussing the
government's response to their excellent report of our Select Committee, so brilliantly led by my
noble friend Baroness Walmsley, our debate has highlighted much of what
I feel I have learned personally and often painfully, as I used to let my own health completely out of
control. We've highlighted very strongly how the Government really
must take forward more of the many practical and positive suggestions
within the report. We know it has some determination to do so, whether
this determination is still very
limited.
I mention my own personal struggle with weight and diabetes because one of the things we must
address is the stigma which accompanies these conditions as we address educating children and their
parents about such issues. And I must say that the approach of
personal responsibility, pull your
own socks up, if I might describe the approach of Lord McColl, is not just unhelpful, it is deeply
counter-productive. I learnt nothing in school about nutrition. I'm
probably one of the few Members of this House who had free school
meals.
I always chose the options with chips. But I've seen much worse options being chosen these days, as
children leave school in the early afternoon, not having had any form
of lunch, and they pour into the nearby fried chicken and burger
shops. In relation to food generally, I prefer the French
approach, as described by Baroness 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 advertising of their products targeted at young people. But as
Baroness Suttie said, parents do not
have information or understanding about sugar content. And we really must properly address the issues of
labelling. Only I think the provision of healthy and nutritious
free school meals will really help
to address the problems that we are talking about.
In the meantime, I do welcome the greater provision for breakfast clubs, which I hope will
offer healthy alternatives than
white toast and surely cereals -- sugary cereals. Boys and girls, men and women can all suffer from body
image issues, as well as health conditions which arise from being
overweight, including the greater likelihood of developing type 2
diabetes. Schools need to address these issues whilst doing much more
to promote health education, cookery skills, as described by Baroness
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, their emotional well- being and it puts significant
burdens on the state through our health and care system. It result in
damage to the economy, as it is far more reliant 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 one and two % 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, and which makes it harder for them to get out of poverty and live more
healthily. That is why I and my party are strong supporters of 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 that will push 50,000 more
children into poverty and a total of
250,000 people altogether.
The government response to the report
and accepts that mandatory regulation can drive change. And it says that parts of the industry welcomed the setting of a level
playing field to avoid the most
scrupulous in the food and drink industry seeking competitive
advantage. We should also ask ourselves why such action as was promised after the COVID-19 pandemic
highlighted the dangers of being overweight, why would these measures suddenly rollback? The answer was
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, who unlike political parties, can keep
their sources of funding secret. Those who lobby in this way must be full in future to declare their
sources of funding and to list them
together with all their contact 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, including especially for ultra-processed foods.
Some of what the government
is doing is welcome that there is widespread agreement that 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
epidemic's of obesity and diabetes.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, what an excellent and informative debate. May I thank
noble Baroness Lady Walmsley and her committee members for this timely, hard-hitting, excellent report and
hard-hitting, excellent report and her outstanding opening speech to
her outstanding opening speech to this debate. This report makes important key recommendations. As
important key recommendations. As noble Lords have rightly highlighted, two thirds of adults in the UK are currently either
12:00
Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
the UK are currently either overweight or obese. The UK has the third highest rate of obesity in
Europe, behind only Malta and Turkey. While the rates of obesity amongst adults appeared to have
stabilised over the last 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 which
surround it. We are often bombarded by statements that healthy eating is
simply a choice but I am afraid that
It's not as simple as that, which
has been powerfully articulated by
Baroness Suttie, Baroness Jenkin, Lord Giddens S, Baroness Freeman and
Baroness Goldie in relation to the issues around altered processed
issues around altered processed
foods.
-- Ultra processed foods. Those you cannot afford healthy alternatives or indeed children in schools were not given a healthier option do not have the luxury of
choice. Nor is there sufficient choice of quality foods for those on
lower incomes as articulated and
outlined so ably by Baroness Brown.
Aviva which is a provider of NHS weight management services estimates that 22% of their patients are in
the bottom socio-economic groups and
13% are unemployed. Which my noble friend Baroness Browning and other
noble Lords have also referred to.
Also has been mentioned eating
habits are often formed in childhood, foods made available to our children often follow them into
adult hood. The choices made as Baroness Batters outlined can remain
for a very long time. NHS Digital's 2024 national child measuring
program showed that two in five children in England are leaving primary school above a healthy
primary school above a healthy
weight which was referred by 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 then we must start by making positive changes in the food
environment. Our children are exposed to, not only in relation to
food safety but also to quality as my noble friend Baroness Coffey also
outlines so ably. There is precedent in this. Japanese health authorities
is world leading. 2021 article by
paediatrics international pointed to the comprehensive, consistent health education in Japanese schools.
This
is enabled by National Curriculum
that in scientifically backed teaching and how to form healthy 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 ministerial colleagues in the Department for education to ensure better health and nutrition
education? All this is of course essential to addressing the issues
identified by Lord Darzi. As the
noble Lords report established we need to move away from reactive medicine and towards a far greater focus on preventative healthcare.
I
know the Minister is supportive of this. Of course a healthy population is the foundation for a healthier
economy. Frontier economics estimated that in 2023 the total
economic cost of obesity was £98
billion. This was so ably outlined
by Lord Bethell and Lord McColl. It is evident therefore in all of our best interest to make further
progress here. There are also a few warnings we must heed, which are
number of noble Lords have outlined. Firstly all noble Lords will be aware of the recent rise in the use
and availability of waste strokes --
weight loss drugs, whilst these have
some success in helping people accessibility, in helping people
have accessibility to these drugs,
these drugs should only be available to those who need them and access should not be limited to
affordability, and we must be careful about over medication.
Secondly we must be aware of vested interests. As Baroness Browning,
Baroness Boycott and other noble Lords have also highlighted very
powerfully. The government recently announced their strategy board
comprised of heads of a number of food retailers. I also appreciate the importance of bringing together
the industry, but there must be an
assurance that such a body will not simply be a lobbying body for their
own interests. To the detriment of public health. Therefore can the noble Baroness the Minister say what
safeguards will be put in place to address this? In conclusion, the
government needs to address urgently and put in place the preventative
strategies to address the root causes of obesity and poor health
now.
Although welcome it would be, we cannot afford to wait for the
government 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 Lord Krebs and Baroness
Meyer, Lord Bethell, Baroness Jenkin
and other noble Lords have said, the research has been done, the reports have been published, it now falls on
the government to be bold, to act and to implement recommendations at
**** Possible New Speaker ****
pace. All the evidence is there. Let me start by saying how much
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Let me start by saying how much we welcome the food diet and obesity
we welcome the food diet and obesity committee report and like many noble Lords I also wish to express
gratitude to the chair, Baroness Walmsley command indeed to all members of her committee for the
12:07
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 to the committee's work. As noble Lords
will be aware that the government published its response to the report
on 30 January following the publication of the committee's
report in the previous October. This has indeed in a very valuable debate
and I'm very grateful to all noble Lords for their wisdom and their
experience and contributions.
It has been acknowledged throughout that
the one thing we are in full agreement is about the characterisation of the problem as
set out in the report. As
highlighted by many noble Lords including Baroness Manzoor, Baroness
Brown and Baroness Meyer. We do face
childhood obesity crisis, well over one third of children are living
with obesity or overweight by the time they leave primary school, and this isn't equal across the country.
This is a matter which disproportionately affects those in
disadvantaged areas.
As Lord Rennard
highlighted amongst other things whilst we also have some two thirds of adults living with overweight or
of adults living with overweight or
obesity. The impact is huge. Increasing the risk of many serious
diseases, exacerbating mental health issues and reducing the years lived
issues and reducing the years lived
in good health as Lord Bethell brings his experience to bear as former health minister rightly
observed. We know that prevention would always be better than the
cure, as Baroness Manzoor refer to
this as something Lord Darzi found evidence of uncommented strongly on and will form one of the three
pillars for the 10 year health plan.
It's also the reason why prevention
is at the heart of our health
mission. I really don't like, I'm sure noble Lords will no, I don't
like to disappoint noble Lords and I particularly don't like to disappoint the chair of said
committee, Baroness Walmsley. I did hear not just from the noble Lady
but other noble Lords, the observations including
disappointment. At the government's
response. I hear that and I will endeavour to respond in a way that I
hope noble Lords will find helpful to alleviate some disappointment,
but I'm sure noble Lords will tell me whether I have succeeded.
We do
need to tackle the root causes of obesity and my noble friend Baroness Brown was absolutely right to
highlight the impact of poverty and homelessness and all that that
means. Because we have to address, as we have heard today, the
increasingly unhealthy changes in our food environment and to make healthier choices cheaper, more
attractive and more available. In order that the healthy choice is not
just the easy choice but it is also
the smart choice.
As Baroness Freeman and Baroness Browning spoke
to, it is about making it possible
to acquit people, and about the experience in cookery skills of noble Lady Baroness Browning in this
regard. Unless people are equipped
it is just not going to happen. Looking to what action has been
taken so far, I don't pretend for a moment that this is a speedy or
simple task. I know that the
committee expressed its concern, actions that have been taken at the time of the report I might add were
not bold enough, nor was the response from this government, nor
was it moving fast enough as Baroness Jenkin is particularly
referred to in urging urgency.
Number of noble Lords have been good
enough to refer to the actions that have orally been taken and since covering that by coming to government in July we have indeed
laid secondary legislation to restrict advertisements of less
healthy Food & Drink to children on TV and online from 1 October this
year and my noble friend Baroness Dowdy -- Baroness Goudie recalled
that that happened -- hadn't
happened previous to this government and referred to the strong voice of industry against this measure and I certainly do remember when in
opposition standing at the Dispatch
Box opposite urging action, and I'm glad we have done this.
I would say
to a number of noble Lords about the influence of industry and I'll come
back to this point later, I have to say it's not my experience either as a minister in this government or a
minister in the last Labour government, that just before the strike because I spoke with industry
or any other stakeholder that we care to mention that I necessarily agreed with them, that I felt
pressured by them and I heard what
Lord Rennard said and and the noble
Earl the Lord Caithness about the comparisons with the tobacco industry.
I can absolutely say is a
former public health minister certainly wasn't my experience in our previous government or indeed
this one, because they were spoken to by those who have a different view that they went along with that.
What I do believe in is transparency
and Baroness Boycott referred to figures under the last government of
the number of meetings and the noble Lady in all noble Lords will know
certain it is required and it is absolutely right that ministers and
others to declare both their interests but actually more than that the meetings we have, I think
that the meetings we have, I think
that absolute crucial and I'm completely on board with doing that.
The other area in which we have taken action has also been referred
to and I'm glad that Baroness Coffey was good enough to support this, is giving local authorities stronger
and clearer powers to block new fast food outlets in schools and where
young people congregate. We have
gone further than our manifesto commitments, the total budget did indeed operate soft drinks industry
level and I thank 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 and I believe, and it is evidence that this uprating will keep this action effective and will
continue to drive reformulation by
industry towards healthier products.
Yes, we do know we need to go
further. Baroness Coffey reminded us of the challenge for individuals,
not just the system, and I
appreciate her personally she told of those challenges. It isn't just
the complexity of the landscape as noble Lords have said and I would agree, but also the complexity of the challenge also refer to
personally by Lord Rennard for individuals and it is right that we
support and guide and educate and
make possible for individuals to be
make possible for individuals to be
make possible for individuals to be
-- we will need -- we will need new -- we will need new measures -- we will need new measures and support for people to make healthier choices.
I have heard the committee
was not concerned that it takes too
long to make new policy commitments. And I was reflecting on this when we
were preparing for this debate. And
when I have... I take that point, however, to the point about the government's response which was made
not many months after coming into government, and that response was, that was made in January of this
year, all started, of course, a
supersweet received the committee's very welcome report.
But being realistic, the government wasn't
ready to make firm positions on introducing or indeed rejecting many
of the committee? More specific
recommendations. And I think for me that perhaps explains, or illustrates, some of the reasons
behind the government's response. And I can say of course policies
will be informed by strategy. And
I'm going to use the word complex again but the food system, and noble Lords have illustrated this today as
they have done on many occasions, it
is very complex and there is need to engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders in government, and industry, in the health and academic
sector, to make sure that policies
will be effective and proportionate.
So to take the necessary steps, we do need to have the machinery in place, needed to drive progress,
bringing together many government departments, including the
Department for Education, and I would refer the noble Lady Baroness
batters to this point, as well as
non-government stakeholders as well as to develop and drive forward and Agenda for Change. And that's why in
addition to the new approach to government, and very much a core
approach, we are developing, and we have spoken about this a lot today, a new cross government food strategy
as recommended in the committee's
report.
In the noble Lady Baroness Batters urged for a joined up
approach. Across government. Including the role of the Department for Education and indeed our very
much part of that as our other
government departments. The food strategy will promote more easily
accessible and healthy food to tackle obesity and diet related ill-health and help children to get
ill-health and help children to get
the best start in life. I know that there has been a lot of discussion
about the advisory board to the strategy.
And I just wanted to make a couple of additional points to the
that have been highlighted. The strategy was announced on 21st
March. The Minister for Food Security and rule of theirs, Daniel Zeichner MP, is the chair, and it
held its first meeting on Wednesday 26 March and the board will
initially meet monthly, to the
points about the composition of what is, as I emphasise, and advisory board, DEFRA did work and continues
to work closely with the Institute of grocery litigation to establish
the board and the IDG will act as a
secretary out for the meeting.
-- Hose Secretariat. Food strategy will
create more easily... I'm sorry, I'm repeating myself. Just emphasise the
point. The food secretary and the
health mission are of course both about delivering change, the very premise on which this government was
elected. And I can give the assurance that all options are being
considered, recognising the need to engage with that wide range of government and non-government
stakeholders. This does include engaging with the food industry, as
my noble friend Lord Brooke
acknowledged,, our food environment, as noble Lords have asked for, needs
to improve in the food industry eight our food environment and the
do need to be part of the solution, and that is the point of which Lady
Baroness Coffey brought her
experience to this debate, to 3 relevant departments.
It's by engaging in this way that is vital
to understand how change my impact that food supply chain and also to
deal with possible risks. Noble
Lords are eager to see progress and so am I. I'm conscious that we are
not dealing with a new problem and an unexpected problem, but one that
has been allowed to develop over many years, so our reaction to that,
Action Plan, has to be properly
designed, policies 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. The points on Monday to regulation, our
actions won't be stopping with the
actions we have already taken. I have heard the concerns and the urge
to be bold. And I heard Tony Blair from Prime Minister being quoted. I also remember him saying, we are at
our best when we are at our boldest. My Lords, Monday to regulation can
indeed drive change and establish a level playing field between companies who have a ready taken
voluntary action and those who have
yet to do so.
-- Already. And the noble Lord Lord Krebs raised a point
about the Cambridge report, that reports that hundreds of policies
have been failing because of voluntary, voluntary approach. What
voluntary, voluntary approach. What
I would like to say to these points, the reference to the bouts of voluntary measures and the government response to the report
did not mean a reliance on wholly voluntary measures, nor was it
voluntary measures, nor was it
giving into industry lobbying. We have already, I have already outlined the steps that we have
taken and we will also fulfil our commitment to banning the sale of
high caffeine energy drinks under 16's, so we will not shy away from taking necessary mandate reaction
and I believe we have a ready shown
this to be on that direction, where it is needed, where it will produce
the best results.
To the matter, important matter of supporting
children, I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Miller that taking
life course approach is key to our commitment, to giving every child
the best start in life. And I again give the reassurance to noble Lords
that the Department for Education and the important role that they play is absolutely key in that. All
of this starts with helping families to access support in feeding their
babies. For those who use infant formula, it is vital that they can access products that are affordable
and high-quality, something I know of interest to the noble Lady
Baroness Suttie.
Would you welcome the competition and market authorities informally report and we
will consider the recommendations,
and will be responding to that. The affordability and availability of healthy food is key, for those
trying to feed the family. We are committed to providing healthy diet for young people and providing
support to families who need it most
throughout healthy start scheme. -- Our Healthy Start Scheme. The mandatory school food standards have
been raised by noble Lady Baroness Brown, the noble Lady Baroness
Goudie, the noble Lady Baroness Freeman among others.
The standards are in place throughout the school
day and I can assure the noble Lord Lord Rennard that these will apply
to the new school breakfast clubs. I have heard the concerns of noble
Lords and I can say that the DfE keeps the approach to school food,
and ensuring compliance, and it review, and now two departments will
continue to work together. If I
could just quickly turned to ultra- processed food. I do agree that
further research is needed to establish why, whether these foods are unhealthy, is it the processing
that nutritional content.
As we have heard in the debate between the noble Lord Lord Krebs, noble Lord
Lord McNicol, and a few of the noble
Lady Baroness Boycott, and also spoken to to the noble Lady Baroness
Suttie, there is a difference of opinion about this, and that is why
the S ACM regularly reviews new and emerging evidence and will publish
statements on UPF and non-sugar sweetness and we are also
commissioning new research. -- Nonsugar sweeteners. I thank the
committee again for its report.
It articulated the seriousness of the challenge and today I hope I have
described some of the mechanisms through which we can work to drive
change. We do know we have to go further where previous governments have not done so. And I look forward
to being able to set up further actions that we will take in due course.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I thank the noble
Baroness the Minister for her response and I will come back to some of her comments in a moment.
some of her comments in a moment. Time doesn't allow me to pick up points from all the fantastic speeches that we have heard today.
speeches that we have heard today. But the hard-hitting speech of Baroness Freeman of Steventon reminded me that I was remiss at the
12:28
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
reminded me that I was remiss at the beginning of my introduction, to thank her for the clever idea of
producing a podcaster in order to disseminate more widely the
fantastic evidence that we received and the many hours of her absolutely free professional advice and work
that she gave us, and 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 and I'm going
to film some of it next Tuesday.
Can I say to Baroness Coffey that regulation is needed because
voluntary action has failed and if
the food industry doesn't like it, well they only have themselves to blame because they didn't come up trumps when it came to voluntary targets. But I do agree with her
that is not the only thing that's needed and I thank her for the FTT be because it's work is really needed in order to get that metrics
for achieving mandatory health targets. Lord Bethell mentioned a lot of food companies and he might
be interested to know that I think the majority of them were invited to give evidence and refused to do so.
I do agree with Baroness Meyer about markets and I spoke recently to said
it can't's health adviser Professor
Etherington who is a long-standing GP in London and he was also very keen on markets because through
them, people on low incomes can get healthy food for the same price as
they might pay for unhealthy food in a supermarket, so that was a very
good point. The Lord McColl on UPF, I would say that the committee came down in the middleground.
We asked
the Minister, 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
1p all that it could be dangerous to
have too much UPF in the dietary pattern because it pushes out health
We had very hard-hitting speeches
about children's food from Baroness Brown of Silvertown, Baroness
Suttie, Lord Rennard and others I would say to the Minister that nobody can criticise a government
that does stuff to improve the diet of children.
So they should really go ahead and do as much as they can
on that. They won't get any criticism or pushback from the
population. This in Baroness Batters, I regret that we did not
have the opportunity or time to talk
about food waste and she is absolutely right about that. We only had eight months and we could look at education, we couldn't look at sustainable production and we
couldn't look at food security or food waste. Only wish we could have done so.
However the Minister has
given me some hope. I think the last government showed that you can
legislate and then give time for implementation to be prepared for. The advertising banner is one of
those things although I don't think it should have taken three although I don't think it should have taken
3.5 years. I would 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.
Very pleased to hear that the noble
Baroness intends to keep some of our recommendations under review and I can assure her there are many people in this chamber today who will also
be keeping an eye on her and the government, we will be following up
in detail how many of the things that we are proposing really put
into place by the government.
This so it really is encouraging to hear
some of the things that she has said but there really are some things that we need to watch very carefully
indeed. I would say to the government that if they get the end
of their five year term of office and they haven't done something this to improve the healthiness of the
food in this country, they will suffer at the ballot box because
it's what people want. Food farming and countryside commission has done quite a lot of polling on this and it's very very clear that it's what
people want.
This if the government wants to win the next election they really want to do something about it. The best advice I can give the
noble Baroness the Minister has already been given by Baroness
Jenkin is to listen to Tony Blair
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and be bold. This The question is that this motion is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The
contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Will have a very short pause to enable those members
12:34
Debate: Report from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee: 'The Modern Slavery Act 2015: becoming world-leading again'
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This Motion for debate, report on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 committee, Baroness O'Grady.
12:35
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness O'Grady. Got up to soon! I am pleased to introduce this debate on our report,
introduce this debate on our report, on behalf of the committee I want to
begin with a sincere expression of appreciation to everyone who provided evidence, to our brilliant
staff team led by Sabrina Haskell, and to our expert adviser Caroline
hockey Casey -- KC he was a pioneer in the successful prosecution of
modern slavery criminals was it is also right to recognise that a step change in victims rights was
achieved only because of the determination of the then Home
Secretary, now the noble Lady Lady May who sponsored the Modern Slavery Act of 2015.
At the time this was
truly world leading legislation. I
thank my fellow committee members for their hard work, diligence and dedication, our deliberations were
sometimes challenging not to say robust, but always I hope conducted
in good spirit. Special mention should be made of Lord Hope who is
unable to participate today but who made the original proposal to establish our committee and that it
should examine whether the still fit
for purpose. Last but certainly not least I pay tribute to the modern
slavery survivors who spoke to our committee and provide feedback on our report, in future we must go
further to ensure that survivors are at the heart of policy-making, not
just giving testimony but shaping
strategy.
I want to highlight my contribution three areas of our
report. Firstly on immigration legislation, our committee concluded that immigration legislation
introduced by the last government had served to undermine support and
protection of victims, including the non-punishment principle that was
enshrined in the Modern Slavery Act. This has had real-world
consequences, making victims more vulnerable and that can only make criminals who exploit them
emboldened. We were disturbed by
their ministers attempts to justify this with the unfounded suggestion that the modern slavery system was
being gamed.
Second-hand anecdotes are never a substitute for hard
data. On examination, our committee
found no evidence to back up such claims. Can the Minister confirm
today that those provisions contained in the Illegal Migration
Act 2023 T3 and -- and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022
which weakened modern slavery victims rights will be repealed. In
addition, victims are often traumatised and may be read up -- reluctant to engage with the
authorities. Our committee recommended that the government set
a goal to guarantee every victim a
trained and accredited advocate navigator to support them through the system.
It's very welcome that
the government wants to expand the scheme, but can the Minister tell us
by how much and how fast? Moreover,
the harsh reality is that an employer who sponsored visas still
hold the whip hand. What incentive does a worker have to report exploitation when an employer can
simply with draw sponsorship, putting them at risk of destitution
and deportation? 60 days to find
another employer sponsor in the same sector means little if the worker
has no home, no money and no power.
In contrast, the Australian
government has recently introduced a workplace justice Visa that in cases
where there is evidence of exploitation, freeze the victim from
dependence on a bad employer and support their right to work in any
sector. Has the government made progress in considering such a scheme in the UK? Secondly the care
sector. Modern slavery in the UK
takes place in many sometimes overlapping scenarios and in many
forms, for example as we saw recently in the shocking case of
modern slavery at a branch of the multinational fast food chain McDonald's, labour exploitation can
soon lead to sexual exploitation.
But while the picture of modern
slavery is constantly evolving, prevention, regulation and
enforcement have not kept pace.
Following an alarming spike in media exposure by investigative journalists drawing on the great work of NGOs and trade unions, our
committee decided to take an in- depth look at modern slavery in the
care sector. We found that in the rush to issue visas to tackle the
care recruitment shortage in 2022, the then government failed to put in
place basic controls that could have prevented modern slavery.
Does the
Minister agree with our committee that organisations should not only
be registered with the Care Quality
Commission, but inspected by them before they are allowed to sponsor overseas care workers to work in the
UK? And that you deter Phoenix companies sponsoring organisations should also be subject to a minimum
period of operation first. Our committee heard evidence of a
continuum of exploitation that starts with week union organisation,
low pay and insecurity, and runs through to no pay, confiscation of
passports and modern slavery.
The government promised their pay
agreement to raise labour standards in the care sector offers a real opportunity to disrupt that
continuum. When responding to our reports recommendations on a single enforcement body, the government promised that the fair work agency I
quote, will be adequately resourced with powers to proactively
investigate and enforce compliance. That is welcome. But the Minister
will be aware that the current number of labour market inspectors
in the UK falls woefully short of the ILO's recommended minimum
standards, leaving us ranked 27th
out of 33 OECD countries for labour market inspection.
While I am sure that many of us would accept that
the ILO benchmark can't be met
overnight, can the Minister perhaps commit to setting targets for increasing the size of the Labour
Inspectorate and publishing progress towards those targets? Since our
report was published, the Employment Rights Bill has promised access for
trade unions to workplaces so that they can organise and so that
extreme exploitation is more likely to be deterred or exposed. Tilting
the current imbalance of power back towards staff.
Can the Minister
confirm that that will include care
establishments? My final point is about supply chains. Our committee
was concerned to stress that the Department of business and trade
must rise to its responsibility to help stamp out modern slavery at
home and abroad. This the
government's commitment to building improved modern slavery statement registry is welcome, but can the
Minister tell us by when? And whether this will include revising
thresholds for modern slavery reporting given that most care providers for well below the current
threshold.
Can the Minister also reassure us that the promised review
of sanctions for non-compliance with reporting the laws will deliver
penalties tough enough to make a difference and provide proper compensation for those who have
suffered slavery? Moreover, while greater transparency and consistency
of reporting would be welcome, as our report makes clear other countries have raced far ahead of
the UK on due diligence requirements
to tackle modern slavery in supply chains. The government's response to
our report promised to look at this.
If the Minister is not able to
update us today, could he agree to facilitate a meeting with the relevant ministers so that members
of our committee have the
opportunity to make that case? 10 years on from the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act, the government has a golden opportunity
to reclaim the U.K.'s title as a world leader in the battle against
modern slavery. We went to the victims to seize that chance. I look
forward to further contributions and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Take it the noble Lady wishes to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
move her motion? I moved. The question is that this motion be agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be agreed to. I should start a diploma interest as the chair of the human
as the chair of the human trafficking foundation. And I would
12:46
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
trafficking foundation. And I would echo all the comments, particularly from the noble Lady Baroness O'Grady
of Holloway about the committee, the committee members, though staff, and
indeed those who gave evidence but I would also pay tribute to Baroness O'Grady herself, not just for her excellent speech but somebody who
came into chair the committee, at somewhat short notice, but her
expertise has been really well
received, and in fact, I think she is now committed to this course, as
I think all of those who are new to the subject on that committee will be.
Yesterday there was a debate on
the other place to mark I think the exact date 10 years ago that the
Modern Slavery Act was passed. And comments were made, very common
sense comments made about now
Baroness May, Dame Karen Bradley MP who is the Minister taking it through, and I'm delighted to see,
in his place, I think behind me, my noble friend Lord Bates who was the Minister who took Modern Slavery Act
through the House of Lords. 10 years on since the passing of the Modern
Slavery Act, I have got somewhat conflicted emotions.
I'm immensely
proud of what we achieved in that
landmark legislation. Yet I'm deeply frustrated that still, despite decades of progress, the scourge of
slavery is still persisting and artwork in combating it is far from
complete. The problem is, of course, that what we find with modern
slavery, all the time, is more and more examples of it and therefore we
have more and more work to do. The committee came up with very
important conclusions and I think one of the things that struck me, and I think I knew this before but I
was pleased to see Dakota, was heart modern slavery as an issue has slipped down the political agenda.
-- I was pleased to see it mentioned. The conflation between
illegal migration and human trafficking, I was very frustrated I
have to say, with some of the legislation is put through which didn't endear me to my lips perhaps
it should be the other way, I didn't find myself indeed to them -- to my
find myself indeed to them -- to my
lips. But I would say is that modern slavery, in many ways, actually
makes us all complicit in it.
Because how many of us can actually say with absolute certainty that the
clothes we wear, the food we eat, the electronics we use are entirely
free from exploitation. It is deeply troubling to me, and it troubles
many people. Modern slavery intersects with every aspect of
society, it may be hidden crime. We don't need to look hard to see it to
become apparent, it is visible in
everyday lives. But trying to eradicate slavery from supply chains as noble Baroness O'Grady said, may be difficult but it is an absolute fundamental issue that we really
have to grasp.
Modern Slavery Act introduced measures to ensure
companies of a certain size to produce statements, but I believe
sadly this is just not happening. Modern slavery also intersects with
many of the government's own mission. Exploitation and the construction industry is high and I
would encourage mitigating the risk to be a key consideration in a plan
to build the one point million new homes we have been promised and when it comes to the much-needed green
energy, it can't be built on the
back of forced labour.
Sadly, the government cannot say it wasn't wanted by this house, only this week it had the opportunity to prevent
exploitation in the new great British energy supply chain.
Expertly put the noble Lord Offord, companies found to be using forced
labour, does not create unnecessary bureaucracy or hidden investment, it simply ensures taxpayers' money does
not fund expectations. This needs to be our focus. Ensuring we are not
all made complicit in labelling this
crime and allowing business as usual is fundamental.
At this moment it is business as usual, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has not
properly resourced to proactively investigate unenforced proper labour practices, if the proposed Fair Work
Agency faces the same levels of under resourcing, we are simply repackaging the problem. Proper
investment in a clear plan of how it will be operated is needed. And if
we say that there will be consequences of forced labour, I would like to point out to ministers
that the government has finally find
car washes for non-workers and only 5% of those fines are being
collected.
Money that could be used for these sources. We currently live
in a society where victims of modern slavery going on food, caring for
elderly, propping up society and creating two tiers, people are being
exploited and people benefit from this exploitation. I don't think anyone in this chamber was to be on either side of the coin. What I would say, in the other place
yesterday, Minister Jess Phillips, a real champion of fighting the scourge, and I think she has made a
real difference.
I just have to say, we will only achieve this if we have
cross-party support and go forward to try to eradicate this and get
back to our position as a world leader.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I begin by declaring an interest, my family depends upon care workers
my family depends upon care workers who come from the CQC registered provider and I have to say that part
12:52
Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
provider and I have to say that part of what I say today is based upon the reflections of sitting overhearing some of the
conversations of those remarkable people who have come around the world to do jobs which are extraordinarily difficult and very
necessary to us here. Yesterday, the
clock to our committee had the great privilege of speaking the
representatives of the Laos Parliament about the process of
post-legislative scrutiny. We talked about the work we did. The question
we were asked was, what was the most important lesson you learned? And I said, I thought that the lesson I learned was that it is very
important to have a mix of people who know the subject inside out.
And
that included our committee people such as Baroness Butler-Sloss, Lord Randall, Baroness Hamwee. Together
with people who know very little, and are capable of asking the obvious questions, that's me. And
therefore I want to say at the start of this debate, we will hear in great detail from various people
around the committee the nature of this problem and what the government
has to do about it. But the key question that we are debating is this. Is it for our government, or
government policy, that ending modern slavery is something which is
seen as being integral to, and integral factor in the development of sustainable business? Or is it a
of sustainable business? Or is it a
luxury that would be very nice to have but actually doesn't matter? It was quite clear to us that under the preceding Conservative governments,
they had gone from being one to being the other.
My suggestion is
that it is neither stop my suggestion is that all of the things that we are going to recommend
today, that the government does as a result of our report, add up to good and sustainable business practice.
The noble Baroness Baroness Grady talked about the care sector and of Italy that is the place that I do
want to focus on. But while we were doing our deliberations, there was
one case that came up. But I think shows the problems really in very stark contrast.
There was a case of
a trawler firm, T.N. Trawler's,
based in Galloway in Scotland. They had over a period of decade been
bringing in sailors from all over the world, people from all over the
world, to act as deck accounts. And they were kept in the most appalling and dangerous circumstances with
absolutely no possibility of contacting anybody at all. That
threw up three issues with me. One, this is not just a domestic issue for us. It's an offshore issue and that is what we didn't get a chance
to focus on in our committee but is very important.
Secondly, the
directors of the company, and the role that the directors of the company and Phoenix companies have,
in the perpetuation of bad practice, is something which the government
has not yet tackled. And thirdly, the loopholes and the lack of
information between different agencies, the police, the Gangmasters authority and others, is
ongoing. We now have a growing body of evidence. In the care sector for
example we have seen the problems grow over the last few years. It's
very strange to me that we cannot get to the bottom of the problem.
Our care sector is actually a sector which is very, very well studied
stop people like private investors don't put their money into a sector in the skill they have without
knowing the detail financials of
that in some detail. And yet we couldn't allows who was paying for the care, who were the companies who
were bringing in workers and who were treating their workers badly and it's extraordinary to me that we
are going to as the noble Lord Lord Randall said, repeat the errors by
setting up an agency that doesn't have the power to demand data of other public authorities and is not
going to have, not just the requisite numbers of inspectors, but
the requisite number of inspectors with deep knowledge of each of the sectors in which these abuses are
happening, in order to not only deal with the cases which turn up but also to do labour market reductions
and prevent matters.
I see the
problems of faeces being tied to particular employers very clearly and I think the noble Baroness
Baroness O'Grady is right that we should look at the Australian system as a way of preventing further
abuses. I go back to my starting point. I think that the role of government is to continue to make
the business case against modern slavery. And in order to do that, we'd have to up our game in terms of research. The noble Baroness O'Grady, like me, was very
disappointed by the response of the Department of business and that we had when we took our evidence.
I
sincerely hope by putting the Fair Work Agency underneath, in that
Department, and making explicit the continuing responsibility of other
parts of government, to feed into it, that we will have overcome that problem. Because if we don't, we are going to continue to trade in human misery, and that is not just
**** Possible New Speaker ****
unsustainable. Milos, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the Parliamentary
the co-chair of the Parliamentary group for modern slavery and vice- chairman to Lord Randall the human
trafficking foundation. I'm so delighted that the noble Lady the
delighted that the noble Lady the Baroness O'Grady has had this debate and I congratulate her on her
splendid introductory speech. She was also, I have to say, an excellent chairman of our committee. In the review of the working of the
In the review of the working of the act in 2019, chaired by Frank Field,
then MP, we looked at how the act was being, or not being implemented
and we made 80 recommendations.
Some of them were accepted by the then
government. None was implemented. The failure was largely due to the
increasing concern over illegal
immigration. Immigration, refugees, and victims of human trafficking, were conflated, as has already been
said. Victims of exploitation were dealt with by the Immigration
Minister. The tone of the previous excellent statutory guidance of the
13:00
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Home Office chain, subsequently the nationality of borders act was
passed in 2022 and the illegal migration of 2023 and the Rand --
migration of 2023 and the Rand -- Rwanda act in 2024. The Rhondda act
Rwanda act in 2024. The Rhondda act not be implemented. The illegal migration sections 22 to 29 on
migration sections 22 to 29 on modern slavery have not yet come into force, and I very much hope
into force, and I very much hope they will be repealed.
But the
nationality and borders act remains in force and I want to deal with certain sections of it. The Select
Committee looked at the impact of sections, I think it's 61 to 68, it
limits access to victims support, partly based on an entirely
erroneous view, as Baroness O'Grady has said, of the previous government
that the NRL was a vehicle for abuse of the system by enabling illegal
migrants to enter the UK. A large
majority of final decisions remain positive and as the noble Lady has
said, our committee found very little, indeed no evidence, that
this has actually happened.
It is entirely anecdotal. I member asking in this House again and again of the then Minister where is the evidence,
then Minister where is the evidence,
What has happened in the past was strongly influenced the rhetoric and
action of government towards possible victims of exploitation, and we said in the report I quote, it should be recognised that there
is a very real difference between migrants who come here willingly and those who come because they are being trafficked as victims of modern slavery. My goodness me,
everybody would think that was obvious.
It didn't seem to me I would say, it was obvious to the
last government. Section 58 of the act requires victims to provide
evidence within a given time which
has pointed out was very difficult for those without representation. Section 61 decreases the recovery period, section 63 provides protection from removal of the
protection from removal of the
United Kingdom and it does imply if an alleged victim was a threat to public order. That is to say, has committed a crime. Earlier statutory
guidance for the Home Office recognised the victims of forced into committing crime by their
traffickers.
Such as Vietnamese young men attending cannabis farms
in rented property. And locked in. But nonetheless they would be deported because they were a threat
to public order. In 2023 there were
331 confirmed disqualifications on the grounds of public order. We
found section 63 being applied
beyond the statutory guidance, there are serious risks of re-trafficking.
The Home Office requires reasonable grounds to be supported by objective factors, despite earlier guidance recognising victims trauma and giving an inaccurate account. Time
for referral to a reasonable
decision and is now touching -- taking much longer, there are issues in legal aid, public law decisions.
The committee recommended that the government should remove the
requirements in section 58 24 evidence to be provided before a
specified date and the requirement for objective evidence and should improve its guidance. More
protection to victims from removal. I would ask the government seriously
to consider repealing all sections
of the 22 act that relate to it. The other thing very quickly on modern
slavery orders, there are three orders, reparation, prevention and risk. None of them is being properly
used, the data is inadequate, there doesn't seem to be sufficient training understanding on how to
deal with it and I would also say there is a freezing order, the civil
law, and if somebody is about to be arrested as a perpetrator it would be very wise to give a civil order
first in order to catch the assets
which at the moment the person is arrested in his phone he will remove the money from the country.
Prevention and risk orders are
extremely valuable and they should be used. The National Referral
Mechanism urgently needs a review, both short-term to deal with
unacceptable delays, and long-term a
real shakeup. There is much else I would like to say but these are the major things I would ask the government to consider.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I also rise to speak as a member of the review committee. On the
13:04
The Lord Bishop of Bristol (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
Modern Slavery Act. In this tense anniversary week. It was world
leading legislation as we have heard. I also rise in the week that
the church commemorates Harriet Mansell, founder of the Anglican community of St John the Baptist
Kahla. A community which from its
19th-century inception had as a core vocation the care particularly of female victims of human trafficking.
That community has for several years funded training of community groups
across the United Kingdom to notice the trafficked people, women, men
and children, hiding in plain sight in their midst and to act on their
behalf.
They have also produced apps, notably for car washes and
male bars giving assurances on their labour practices and our suppliers, and in today's debate that's where I would like to focus my remarks. I
draw attention to section 54 the
Modern Slavery Act which imposes a duty on companies supplying goods or services which have a turnover of at
least 36 million to prepare slavery and human trafficking statement every financial year. The statement
should set out the steps that
businesses taking to address and prevent the rise of modern slavery in its operations under the supply
chains.
I know that some take that
commitment very seriously, I was happy to meet with one such company recently a prime arc, which
undertakes thorough and regular independent audits of its factories
in order -- employing experts who speak the local language and in turn talk to the local workforce so they
know what is going on on the ground and once they find the situation has materially changed, they pull out of
materially changed, they pull out of
the market. For example in 2019 prime arc found they could no longer conduct effective human rights due diligence in Xinjiang province of
China so they prohibited all suppliers from using an sourcing products, materials, components or
labour originating from the region.
Prime arc has taken equally decisive
action when UK suppliers have been found to be non-compliant. Our
report included recommendations on strengthening statutory guidance in
section 54 of the act, and the introduction of sanctions for non-
compliance as Baroness O'Grady indicated. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister on progress
in this area. The issue of modern
slavery and exploitation in the supply chains raises questions about corporate accountability. While
consumer businesses are exposed to a greater level of transparency and
accountability, their lesser-known competitors can get away with publishing week statements or not
publishing at all in the knowledge any penalties are unlikely to be forthcoming.
I know many businesses
including the British retail
Consortium John Lewis, Tesco's and others asking for further regulation so the companies who operate supply
chains free from forced labour are not left as a financial
disadvantage. A change in the law
would chime with the public as polling shows four in five people want a new law to prevent
exploitative practice. Law must in future hold UK companies accountable, establishing a central
registry of statements similar to
the gender pay gap register, enforcing Modern Slavery Act by imposing financial penalties where
companies failed to publish a statement and provide swift access
to justice for victims.
Public sector organisations are also vulnerable to modern slavery risks
in their supply chains, and like -- lack the resources to address
potential threats. Currently public
sector organisations as we know are driven by the need to drive down costs and find savings wherever they can, but it is vital individuals are
not endangered through their
association with such risks. The government modern slavery assessment
tool indicates 21% of suppliers were
identified as high-risk and surgical instruments, gloves, gowns, uniforms and masks, PPE, were identified as
the five highest risk products.
A possible reform to procurement processes could be the introduction
of clauses into public tender
legislation mandating explicit disclosures about modern slavery
risks. These clauses would require suppliers to demonstrate due diligence and reaffirm their
commitment to preventing modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act was truly groundbreaking when it was
first introduced, but it must keep pace in changes to business
practices by recognising the increasing complexities of supply chains. There are exemplary
practices as I have indicated, but
these need regular -- regulatory
support and corporate environment has practices that actively encouraged.
Incentivising businesses were created competitive and
regulatory environment where companies would race to the top
rather than race to the bottom. The law as it currently stands discourages businesses from doing anything but the bare minimum and
leaves the UK record on human trafficking once so powerfully pioneering, now profoundly
blemished.
blemished.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate, the church has been an essential voice in the campaign to end one slavery, many will remember the significant role
will remember the significant role played by the Alistair Redfern during the passage of legislation to
during the passage of legislation to this House. Can I begin by joining with us and paying tribute to Baroness O'Grady and to all the
13:11
Lord Bates (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Baroness O'Grady and to all the members of her committee and to the clerks and advisers for an excellent
and timely report. As the Minister had the privilege of steering this legislation through your Lordships house I felt shared pride with many
others when it eventually arrived on the statute book my say shared because it was a cross-party measure
brought in by a coalition government. You can't get more
shared than that. That was it strength and it remains its strength. It couldn't have happened
as Baroness O'Grady has generously said without the determination and
reforming zeal of Baroness May of Maidenhead as Home Secretary, nor
without Frank Lord Field who first challenged us to call a spade a
spade and referred to human trafficking as modern slavery and Chad both the pre-and Post-
legislative scrutiny ably supported by Baroness Butler-Sloss and Lord
Randall.
We should also acknowledge the role played by many civil
society organisations such as Centre for Social Justice, justice and care, and the dedicated civil
servants who translated the poetry of our hopes into the careful prose
of legislation. The task of tackling modern slavery cannot be achieved by one department. One party, or one
country. The crime of modern slavery is not something that only occurs in
the United Kingdom, the 2022 report
by the ILO and the international organisers for migration estimated that 50 million people in situations of modern slavery around the world, it's a global problem and a solution
needs to be global as well.
We can no more work alone to tackle human trafficking than we can to tackle climate change or pandemics. Just as
problems cross departmental and cross-border, so solutions must be
found in cross-party -- cross departmental working cross-border working. The highly organised criminal gangs who are conducting this evil trade in human misery and
suffering are no respect has of borders and we need to cooperate internationally if we are to combat
them. It's worth reminding ourselves that the initiative for the legislation on modern slavery aim through the United Nations protocol
to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons especially
women and children known as the Palermo Protocol which came into
force in 2003.
This led to the convention on action against trafficking in 2008 and now covers
46 countries. We may have left the EU but mercifully we are still part
of its predecessor the Council of Europe. The fourth UK valuation
report by the Council of Europe group VACs on trafficking in human
beings is currently underway. Can I ask the Minister what path this report has played in that evaluation
process? How can we learn from the process and the evaluations undertaken in the other 45
countries? And who responsibility will that be? Paragraph 203 of the
report deals with the need to clarify responsibility for enforcement, and how this is divided
between departments.
In the government response page 25 points to the special coordinated role of
the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. If you don't have clarity of
responsibility when you can't have clarity of accountability. Let me test that role in a couple of
respects. In 2023 the government appointed the highly experienced
diplomat just as Bedford -- justice
Bedford as the modern slavery envoy full stop he left his post in 2025. This would seem to be a very
important coordinating role, but I can't see who has replaced him.
Could the Minister provide an update
for us on that appointment? Secondly, having served as a
minister in the Home Office but also as a minister vented development, I
know UK overseas aid payment in tackling some of the pressures on
human trafficking at source. In 2020 the Independent Commission for Aid Impact estimated that the UK budget
allocated explicitly tackling modern slavery was £200 million over an
unspecified period. This is a relatively small sum compared to the estimated economic cost of modern slavery to the UK taxpayer which the
Home Office estimates running between 3.3 billion to 4.3 billion
Yet on the government website
development tracker, I note that the programme called Supporting global
programme called Supporting global
action to end modern slavery had a budget of £12.5 million and ended in
2021.
The successive programme which started in 2024 and runs to 2030 has
a budget of just 1.1285 million pounds. 10% of the previous one. The
overall budget has been cut mindlessly. Is that correct? What is
the current eight budget directed
tackling modern slavery and how is this detected change? Because in government, as ever as, results are not driven by rhetoric but the
efficient allocation of resources and resolve. I don't doubt the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
government's result but I do seek reassurance on the adequate resources. It's a great pleasure to follow
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It's a great pleasure to follow my friend Lord Bates who worked together in the coalition government
on the question of human trafficking, and ensuring that we
got the UN Convention human trafficking agreed which took a while to get done, but we managed to
while to get done, but we managed to do it because of the election and so on. I must declare my interest as a
13:17
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
on. I must declare my interest as a member of Saint George and Stuart for women, Peace and Security Forum
also the global women Asian network director which was the first person to bring the whole question of human
trafficking across my eyes and desk
in 1976. From thereon very interested to work locally and here in this country and as I said
earlier, I really welcome this report. 10 years ago UK made history
by passing Modern Slavery Act 2015, a groundbreaking law design expose
a groundbreaking law design expose
exploitation, prosecute persecutors and protect victims.
It was a beacon of leadership and a global fight
against Monday slavery but in 2025, we must ask ourselves, has it delivered? I know that Baroness May is also working on this, to see
where we are, both here and globally. I'm really grateful for
her and her report. That modern -- the act brought modern slavery out of the shadows and enforced greater powers, creating an antislavery
commission and mandating people to
support supply chain. We have seen progress with 466 solution, 405 and
2022 and over 3,500 live investigations in late 2022.
A stock
rise from 188 in 2016. Victim
identification has surged and with
12,727 cases, referred to in 1921. As we know this is a global crime
and it is well connected around the
world, as my noble friend Baroness Ludford said here despite the
studies we are far from eradicating
the crime. Conservative estimates estimate up to 130,000 people in the
UK are trapped in modern slavery -- prosecution rates barely scratch the
surface.
The system is overwhelmed living survivors in limbo for months
or years. Worst of all, this migration legislation such as the Illegal Migration Act 2023 has
created tensions and with potential
to do to victims from seeking help
due to deportation fears. What do slavery -- modern slavery is not static for stock criminal networks have evolved infiltrating global
supply chains and that good
community and care sectors. Gangs exploit vulnerable children and digital trafficking is growing. Yet the UK's modern slavery strategy has
remained largely unchanged since
2014.
Other nations have moved ahead, as others have mentioned,
Australia's Modern Slavery Act of 2018 and the EU's corporate sustainability due diligence directive impose tougher requirements demanding businesses
actively prevent forced labour rather than just report it. I think
we also ought to look at companies in their reporting on the gender pay
gap, on ethnicity, but also now on how their supply chains are
delivered and how this is. It's really getting important, more
important, as we are not making very much and we are importing almost everything.
Particularly in the
garment trade because that is huge. We have seen not only in this
country but everything that comes in is from somewhere in Asia or further afield, or countries we don't even
remember because they are in the force division of the world's
countries but they now doing this. Despite over 16,000 UK businesses
finding statements by 2024, compliance as I mentioned remains in
constant and crucially there are low
penalties for failing the act. Without mandatory due diligence, transparency becomes a hollow exercise rather than a tool for
change.
In the UK to reclaim its position as a world leader and as we were tackling modern slavery, we
must act decisively, first we must strengthen victim protections by
dressing delays in the national referral mechanism ensuring survivors receive immediate legal
observation, safe housing and psychological support. Equation
policies must be performed to protect victims rather than penalised them. Second, corporate accountability must be reinforced
through mandatory laws and strict penalties on non-compliance. With
global best practice, businesses
must require to take protective measures not just report risk.
Support must be bolstered by making sure crime doesn't pay. Increasing
prosecution and modernising legislation to combine emerging
threats like digital exportation. The ones they react must be updated
to reflect current realities -- the employment bill is a step forward
but comments of reform is sorry to ensure the law keeps pace with evolving criminal tactics and the
economic vulnerabilities. The Modern Slavery Act has promised to victims
and the world. The decade on let us not merely commemorate its passage
but demand its transformation and we must rise to the challenge and ensure that the United Kingdom in
**** Possible New Speaker ****
2025, no one lives in chains. My Lords, may I start by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, may I start by mentioning how sad I was that Baroness Henig who was due to chair this committee was sadly unable to
this committee was sadly unable to take on this role due to ill-health and passed away as our deliberations began. She was a very intelligent
began. She was a very intelligent and kind lady had the privilege to serve alongside other committees of
13:23
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
serve alongside other committees of special enquiry. I also say how fortunate we are that Baroness O'Grady took on this role, despite having only been in your Lordship's House for a short time, who was in
my view an excellent chair whose past experience was evident in her
careful and considerate handling of an important and timely review of
the Modern Slavery Act. I would have called like to add my thanks to our
clerk in the wider team for their professionalism in dealing with the committee's work.
The task of postage is review is never straightforward and even less so when the subject matter is complex.
And there is no doubt that modern slavery is a complex subject with a great many overlapping factors. We
certainly saw that when hearing
evidence and cross-examining witnesses. In the short time we will have to speak in today's debate, it's only possible to be cowed a
couple of topics from our report and I would therefore like to focus on the following. During our deliberations we heard from a huge number of NGOs, academics, experts
and people who had spent often years or decades studying and working in
the area of modern slavery.
But the word prevention was rarely spoken
and I think until our eight meeting
had only been said twice. There seemed at times to be a lack of understanding between cause and effect, the last assisting produced by government back in 2017 estimated
that modern slavery cost the UK
economy between £3.3 billion £3,300,000,000.04 £0.3 billion each year, which is about as broad brush
as one could get. Yet despite these costs, and despite being able to keep being able to have a career in
keep being able to have a career in
the industry of NGOs looking after the victims of modern slavery, and despite all the difficulties that we as a committee saw evidence of, the
current prosecution rate of people who are behind all this misery and human tragedy and suffering is 1.8%
of the cases brought to the attention of the please".
I would
-- of the police and courts. We were
assured that since heading but hidden crimes had a similar prosecution rate it wasn't apparently as low as seemed. The figure nevertheless struck me and
other members of the committee as painfully inadequate. Could I
therefore ask noble Lord the Minister whether he could update the House on what measures are being considered to put in place to
increase this prosecution rate and whether there are any plans to
significantly increase the prison sentences for those who are prosecuted as a deterrent in what is
viewed by many in the criminal fraternity as being a high profit
low-risk crime.
Could I also asked noble Lord the Minister whether he could provide any updated figure
from the one available from eight years ago and how much the effects of modern slavery are costing the UK
economy today. The second point I
would like to raise is that during our findings I was somewhat dismissive of certain areas and topics being examined which in my
view constituted bad employment practices rather than modern slavery
and I felt at times that we were being taken of course.
But I have changed my mind. And that is one of
the great things about your Lordship's House. We are entitled and have the freedom to change our
views, and I accept now that certain employment practices may provide a culture in which modern slavery can
exist. And my view was changed following the publication of a news
article in September of last year, subsequent to the publication of our report and briefly referred to by
report and briefly referred to by
the noble Baroness Lady O'Grady, concerning modern slavery victims, or from the Czech Republic who have been.
For years to work at Donald in Cambridgeshire and a company
supplying bread products to major
supermarkets. The criminal gang in question, for 16 victims to work at
either the fast food restaurant or the factory which supplied Astor,, Sainsbury's, Tesco and Waitrose. I
cannot comment on the bakery companies, I have no knowledge of them but McDonald's however is an
excellent employer, with a happy long-standing workforce. But well
established warning signs of slavery including paying the wages of four
men into one bank account were missed and on several occasions the victims escaped and fled home only
to be touchdown and traffic time.
While an delighted exploitation ended after victims contacted police in the Czech republic, how can so
many red flags have been missed,
allowing 's quotation to -- allowing exportation to carry on over many
years. Is there plant to initiate further coverage with police forces from other countries to help solve this international problem and when
the government should be providing advice to employers of the potential red flags indicating that modern
slavery may be operating. Perhaps the banks should be encouraged to be vigilant in cases where wages are
being paid into single accounts.
May
I end by saying it was a privilege to serve on this committee of
special inquiry and I silly hope that it might help to break the
invisible chains of modern slavery -- I sincerely hope.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
It was a privilege to serve with colleagues and my noble friend Baroness O'Grady, with the
Baroness O'Grady, with the committee, brilliantly supported by
our clerks and our team. With the introduction of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and Illegal Migration Act 23, the previous
13:29
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Migration Act 23, the previous government conflated modern slavery and on trafficking with people
smuggling and irregular migration. And remove protections for survivors
of modern slavery making it harder, both the prosecutor perpetrators and for survivors to receive support.
I'm glad to say the border to asylum and immigration bill repealed much
of the Illegal Migration Act those sections which cover modern slavery. However, public order
disqualifications will remain in place and I hope my noble friend who I'm pleased to welcome to his in
your but his inaugural debate as a I want to concentrate on two main
aspects of our report.
Both of which have been covered already by other noble Lords, I suspect, and the
first concerns the care sector. 57%
of all skilled worker issued in
22/23 were health and care visas. This is a vital sector of the economy but it is straining at the
seams. It has led to abuse by some care providers in the attempt to
fill the gaps with care workers from overseas. I'm pleased to see the
government has this month introduced regulations that require care providers to sponsor foreign workers
to first try to recruit from a local pool of migrant care workers who
seek employment due to no longer having sponsorship because their sponsors have been able to offer
sufficient work or have lost their
This has happened before new routes
can be sponsored from overseas.
Workers in the pool may have undergone expectation including modern slavery and may be living in adverse circumstances including
homelessness and in some cases destitution. Change is very much a
positive step, it will be important to monitor the effect it has over the next year. The Employment Rights
Bill will introduce the fair work agency which will absorb the statutory duties of the gang masters
authority including identify and refer potential victims of modern
slavery, that will be an overdue tightening of employment practices in the sector.
I also want to
highlight issues in supply chains with due diligence of employers is
required. This is a part of our report that I have to say to my noble friend the government's
response is disappointing. The committee called for publication of
statements on the modern slavery register to be mandatory, I would have thought that's a
straightforward request but the government response speaks only of
the voluntary uploading of statements. That approach has been shown to be insufficient, there needs to be enforcement otherwise nothing will change in a meaningful
sense.
If the government is serious about ethical supply chains and
certainly I don't doubt that, then it needs to show that those companies who do not see it as a
priority. Our committee recommended that the government should introduce proportionate sanctions for organisations that fail to comply
with supply chain requirements. In response the government said that it was reviewing how it can strengthen
penalties non-compliance and create a proportionate enforcement regime.
And will set out steps more broadly
in normal parlance in due course.
That was three months ago so I wonder if my noble friend can say whether there has been any progress
stop the current reliance on the Home Secretary seeking an injunction is compliance simply isn't adequate
in the situation. In her excellent
opening speech Baroness O'Grady calls on the government to direct the Department for business and to
to act on supply chains. I have to
say the committee were treated very poorly by the Department which the several weeks refused to send anybody to give evidence.
It occurs
to me that the Department officials may well be responsible for urging caution on the government regarding sanctions, if so I very much hope my
noble friend and other ministers will resist it. I welcome that the
Home Office is currently working
with business academia and civil site is update section 54 statutory guidance in the space will stop that will improve the quality of the statements but they remain voluntary
and the committee believe that is not enough. I do accept it's really difficult to set up ethical supply chains but more companies are now
understanding the issues and what needs to be done.
The Bishop of
Bristol I met with Right Reverend
Mallett and I find that they are an excellent example of what can be achieved with the right approach, that company has been taking action
on supply chains for 20 years, and now has 130 people in ethics and sustainability team and they pay for their own audits which ensures they
are independent, these are carried out for appointing a supplier not after, though of course they update
constantly. I believe promax emphasis on using local partners to
build their capacity in the country of origin with the aim of leaving a legacy to ensure standards are
maintained a model many more companies are could and should follow.
Without some form of
sanction is no reason to believe that those who do not currently do so will change. Again as Baroness
O'Grady said, a great deal of credit
is due to Baroness May of Maidenhead for her pioneering work in this area as Home Secretary she was primarily responsible for the Modern Slavery Act of 2015 and despite being
somewhat distracted by other events when she became Prime Minister she
has never lost that focus. She once called modern slavery the great
human rights issue of our time and it's no surprise to learn that she set up a foundation through which to continue campaigning.
That is
undoubtedly necessary as the now 120,000 people estimated to be living in modern slavery in the UK. 10 years on from the act there is
still much to do and that report sets out many useful steps to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
taken on that journey. It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and also my fellow
13:36
Lord Kempsell (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
noble Lord and also my fellow committee members in this debate. I would like to add my thanks to all of them and everyone involved with
this Post-legislative scrutiny work. In particular to the noble Lady
Baroness O'Grady for her work sharing this committee on the conservative side we now know that
we need trade unionists to chair committees really effectively and
this was a committee which had to examine some very difficult and troubling material, it was a
committee that had to deal with some issues in immigration policy which
are very divisive and I think the way through the committee's deliberations if I may say so it was
carried out in the best spirit of your Lordships house will stop so thank you.
Before I go any further can I also put my thanks and record
to the staff, to our expert adviser were not sure we get mentioned in
this debate. And for all the help that the House provided in putting together a report. I would also like
to record just how effective, affecting and moving I found much of
the evidence to be. We've had so
many ways to think about modern slavery, it's a complex topic. In this debate. Perhaps one Perhaps 1 Very Straightforward Way to think
about what modern slavery is through the prism that it is a crime.
It is
a crime which is having a terrible impact on some of the most vulnerable people in United Kingdom
and in communities more widely. I
would like to highlight some of the findings the evidence in our report about the links between modern slavery and other forms of offending including the running of county
lines drugs gangs which previous administrations tried very hard
various iterations to tackle, and the impact modern slavery of course runs far beyond its immediate
victims into the economy, into
standards in employment, into healthcare and into many sectors.
That's why we must do everything we
can to redouble our efforts to eradicate this crime. That really
leads us to the difficult question which is how. Even as this
legislative scrutiny exercise legislation alone is never the full picture. Enforcement is key. Our
committee heard repeated evidence
about a lack of resources, lack of focus, uncertainties over best practices and priorities in the
enforcement architecture. I have to say perhaps I'm not alone amongst
noble Lord that I found the overlapping domains of different agencies quite confusing, perhaps
it's a prime example of the incoherence of some of the modern
British state despite the great minds that we have assembled on the committee found it difficult to keep track of just which enforcement
agency was responsible precisely for
what.
I think in the design of the government's new enforcement
architecture it will be important to keep in mind the findings of this committee that those overlapping and
unclear areas of aegis and remit can really slow down and impact
enforcement. On the bright spots in
the enforcement landscape was delighted to read recently that in my home county of Hertfordshire police are now using the slavery and
trafficking prevention orders to tackle gangs who exploit children to
distribute drugs. There are powerful civil orders in this act as Baroness
Butler-Sloss referred to.
These orders can be used to ban foreign travel, barren criminals from
working with young people, place restrictions on contacting vulnerable individuals. They are
also being well deployed now by Essex police, one of the first forces in the country to deploy a
slavery and trafficking risk order. That is why I was pleased to read in the government's response to our
committee reports that the further deployments and the more effective use of those orders is a priority
for the government. Given the reference made by my noble friend Lord Smith to the low prosecution rates of just 1.8% it's no wonder
people are asking whether the measures that are available to law
enforcement in this act are being used to their full potential.
This
the statistic does bring me to another area of concern I felt when
I was working on this committee, that is data or the lack of it. I was particularly struck by the
evidence of SA Bernards Silverman and the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the Home Office. He pointed out there are many different
ways of measuring these crimes but none of them are inherently reliable because they all have assumptions built into them and various
drawbacks. Modern slavery is a hidden crime in many ways, you cannot measure it in the way you
measure many other offences.
Therefore I would urge you will should house to consider recommendations we make about data
and improving government understanding of that field. I
realise I may very well be in the minority on this but I would also use the same caution when coming to
a fixed view about whether the modern slavery architecture is or isn't open to abuse by bad actors
who were themselves are not victims of modern slavery, but are trying to
exploit the asylum system. I don't think that claim can be immediately dismissed out of hand, we simply
don't have the necessary evidence.
That's why am pleased the committee
concluded in its report that the government should develop a sound evidence base to inform policy here,
that data should be sourced as to whether and if so in what respects and by whom the modern slavery
system is being abused and it's very important that data should be published rather than just being held in government. Overall I really concluded after engaging in the work
of this committee that at the heart of fighting modern slavery we do
need tougher policing.
And a more effective immigration system. With
that in place are better equipped and in a better position to
crackdown on this crime and I know that across your Lordships house there is a consensus that we must do
all we can to fix that.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Had IT served on the committee I think Baroness O'Grady for her chairmanship and her introduction. All members of the committee who
13:42
Lord Whitty (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
All members of the committee who have spoken today and stolen all my lines, I thank them because they
have done a great job in pointing out both the analysis of the problem
and the reasons why it has failed. I
thought I would address the question by which implication was raised by
Lord Smith, I think was Lord Smith. Why are people not taking this more
seriously? Baroness O'Grady and I
come from a tradition where many of our comrades have always said well, all employers are exported to so
what's the problem? -- Exploitative.
I'm afraid that is the attitude of quite a lot of the public both as commentators and as consumers. The
fact of the matter is our defining
definition of modern slavery is control, absolute control. The
employers alleged employers, gang masters that exist in this area hold
over the people that they exploit is intense. They probably hold their passports, they hold their work
records, they hold they provide the
accommodation and in some cases they have the ability to terrorise their own families back in the nations
they came from.
Those of hon -- those of them who were traffic
tearful course we also have to remember that quite a lot of the victims of modern slavery were not
trafficked here. 25% at least of the victims identified are of UK origin. 28% are actually children, probably legitimately here and others would
be legitimately here in the short- term because they came here on legitimate short-term visas. So this is not a problem that stems
primarily from immigration. One of the problems of the institutions
involved in this area is that the Home Office which was keen under
Theresa May actually got overwhelmed with the issue of immigration and
have regarded these powers in the Modern Slavery Act and the responsibilities they are supposed
to undertake under it as another means of getting alleged illegal
immigrants.
That is unfortunate. It's probably inevitable, in my view it is a good reason for not allowing
the Home Office to be the main
protagonist hereafter. Of trying to eradicate modern slavery. Because
the Home Office's business and their focus is inevitably elsewhere. The
Department of perhaps ought to be
responsible, the Department for and trade -- Department for Business and Trade proved to be very elusive in
getting information from them and declined at one stage to provide evidence and ministers to speak to
the committee.
That must be, that and the institutions run by
department must be the way of getting systematically at the way in
which people who are employed in this country on terms which are
One of the difficulties is that
people don't know what we mean. People, the public do not encounter
it in any meaningful way. Either because it is criminal and only
certain, in terms of providing services to prostitution or to drugrunning or cannabis farms, which
most people do not come across.
Or a
short-term labour in places which most of the public don't visit, like
short-term labour in farming and in construction. It was when I came
into this issue when I was agricultural minister that I got
some knowledge in the Gangmasters
and the work provided to farmers. It is hidden in domestic service, for example, many of the cases
successfully brought in that area, but there are hundreds of thousands that are never touched or known about. But also the places where the general public do come into contact
with the final result, and nail bars, and McDonald's as has been said, and car washes.
They have no
idea the people they deal with are actually held there under terms
which amount to modern slavery. And I think public education must be
part of this. So we have on the one
hand a lack of proper public appreciation that there is a big problem, a costly problem and one which undermines the legitimacy of
lots of our sectors and undermines employment conditions more generally, and it's partly a failure
of the institutions stemming from the Home Office and the fact that
we, the enforcement agencies, do not appear to cooperate with one another.
I'm hopeful that under the
bill we discussed yesterday, the Employment Rights Bill, the Fair
Work Agency will perhaps do some of this. I have yet to be convinced that it will have the powers or
indeed the resources to do so and I welcome the assurance from the
Minister whose department and taking this away from, that the other
department, and the priorities of government, will ensure that there
are resources in this area. So we need both to raise public consciousness on the one hand and we
need to raise the priority within government and deliver the institution for regulation and enforcement that the government has
so far failed to do.
If we can do both of those things you can begin
**** Possible New Speaker ****
very heavy task of eradicating modern slavery. My Lords, I would like to thank
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to thank Baroness O'Grady for presenting this
13:48
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Baroness O'Grady for presenting this important report, for debate, and 10 years ago the UK led the world in
tackling modern slavery. And in 2012, it was me that introduced the
first antislavery antitrafficking
bell into the House of Lords, and with the cooperation of everyone, we
got it through. But it got stuck in
the Commons, as usual. And so I sent it to Prime Minister Cameron, who
got his Home Secretary, Theresa May, to form a committee to design a more
comprehensive bill, and I was privileged to sit on that.
And it
became the Modern Slavery Act. And became a landmark piece of
legislation worldwide. But, 10 years
later, our leadership has weakened. Policy changes have made things
worse. Victim support, the national referral mechanism, the NRM, and
immigration policies, have all
changed. And these changes have left victims in greater danger. So I
welcome this timely report, as we plan the next decade of action. For
many, modern slavery seems rather
distant.
It doesn't seem to affect daily life, they think. But, as has
been already mentioned, slavery is
involved in the manufacture of our
clothes, washing cars, serving food.
So we ought also to understand that
the UK government is actually buying Chinese solar panels made by victims
of modern slavery. And this should stop forthwith, does the Minister
not agree? Victims feel trapped,
without support there's no escape. The issue is the tackling of the NRM criteria.
This has drastically
reduced the number of victims saving
support. In 2022, I think as has been mentioned already, 89% of cases
saved positive reasonable grounds decisions. But by 2024, this figure
fell to just 53%, and worse still,
fell to just 53%, and worse still,
35% of all now rejected because of insufficient information. This was
once rare and now accounts for over half of all negative decisions. The
committee's report makes this clear. It states that requirement for objective evidence of making
reasonable grounds decisions has
deprived many of the support they would previously have been entitled
to.
Even those who qualify for support, the support only lasts for
the recovery period. And this period
is now technically only 30 days. Which is far too short for victims
recovering from severe trauma. Many suffer from disorder, anxiety,
disorientation, they have faced rape, violence and coercion,
recovery does take time. Many of
whom is also way to long time for a conclusive decision and when they finally receive it, support does not
continue. Instead it often stops. Many are left homeless, destitute
and at risk of further trafficking.
Without housing and for long-term support, how can they rebuild their
lives, how can they help to bring
traffickers to justice? Between 2017 and 2019, I proposed several rabbit
members bills to extend support for
victims after a conclusive grounds decision. Sadly I was unsuccessful.
But I'm pleased that the committee has highlighted this issue. And at
this stage I would like to pay tribute to that marvellous Chief Whip on the Labour side and the
House of Lords, Roy Kennedy.
He
always supported me and in fact he used to say, the thing to do about
the avid members bills is stop people putting down amendments. And if you find anyone is putting down an amendment, just you tell me and I
shall go and lean on him until he stops bringing the amendment. -- The
thing to do about private bills. The
other thing is about modern slavery being treated as an immigration issue, as has been mentioned. Victims are often seen as illegal
immigrants first and they are not recognised as people who are
suffering extreme exploitation.
This
discourages reporting, many victims especially those trafficked from overseas, fear retention
deportation. Modern slavery is not
about immigration. It is a serious human rights issue. As abuse, as has
been mentioned. And the same time,
modern slavery remains widespread in our economy. Investigations into
major retailers have shown this. Charities and frontline organisation
worked tirelessly to support survivors but they cannot do so alone. They need government to
support them. This means safe housing, financial to, and long-term
security.
It means tackling modern
slavery as a crime, not as part of
immigration enforcement. One initiative that does work very well
is the victim navigation scheme, run by justice and care. It has a 97%
success rate, in securing convictions for modern slavery
convictions for modern slavery
cases. Where it has reported victims, has helped with these
victims. I have advocated for this scheme before and I do so again. The
government must act, expand this
nationwide.
My Lords, the UK once led the world against modern slavery. We must do so again. Let us
support this report and help the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
victims recover and rebuild their lives. Thank you. My Lords I should declare an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords I should declare an interest as a trustee of safer London which supports young people
at risk of exportation. Recently a flat in my leafy London suburb was cleared out by large apparently
13:56
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
cleared out by large apparently industrial items being chucked out of an upstairs window. Later I heard
it had been a cannabis farm, to respond to Lord Whitty. This caused
a small stir, but no one seemed to be curious or concerned about who had been working there. Then the
local councillor Toby she had dealt with three cases of cuckooing in
rapid succession. It doesn't happen here. Slavery needs to be taken
seriously to be on everyone's radar. Enforcement service providers,
anyone can come across it, and the first issue is to recognise it because victims for a range of
reasons may not be able to speak.
It
seems there are parallels with the response, failure to respond to domestic violence. Is the Home
Office largely focused on law enforcement? The right department? Could it not focus more on support
and recovery? Our committee and members today, of course, refer to
the conflation of slavery, at irregular migration, and the Home
Office seems to be focused still on immigration numbers. Immigration
trumps slavery in practice. The fair work agencies to be an executive
agency of the Department of business and trade, committee was, I've
written down, unconvinced that this department understands the nuances
of Baroness O'Grady, who has spoken very clearly on this and other
issues and my noble friend Baroness
Barker issued an important challenge to the Department.
I hope the Department keeps modern slavery in mind in negotiating trade
agreements. Including with the US.
Members have spoken about the confusion between trafficking and
smuggling. And assertions, not shown to be more than assertions, of widespread fraudulent claims.
Enforcement of the criminal law is
quite and inadequate, painfully slow in Lord Smith's words. All of this and more indicates the need to
reverse the role axon modern slavery protection, protection required by human rights law -- the rollbacks on modern slavery.
To revise
legislation more than just the,
under the broader security bill. My noble and learned Lady, I emphasise to revise guidance, which reflects
the culture of disbelief. Language
matters, it affects public attitudes. A threat to public order,
victims must be identified both for their own sakes and for
investigation, prosecution and resolution but it's not actually necessary for victim to cooperate to
be entitled to protection. I applaud the work of individuals and organisations in the third sector
who deal with victims of exploitation often beyond imagining.
I can talk about the need for training including in hard-pressed local authorities to help
identifying it but I will just say struck by the call for court ladies
or single points of contacts in each authority, and authorities have not received new burdens funding to
tackle slavery or to support victims. Above all, I applaud
survivors prepared to speak. They are experts and their evidence is in
valuable. The issues are big, wide
and deep. They were too big for time-limited committee and I'm not doing justice to the committee's work today, it benefited physically from the clear focus of our chair,
the work of the staff and our adviser and the evidence of our
We are hearing a lot this week that the world has moved on.
The world has moved on with different forms of
expectation that are being deployed and there is another debate to be had about whether new definitions
are needed. New cohorts of people are being exploited. Just one of each county lines and care workers
are treated as agricultural workers and have been treated for far too
long. The RCN reports receiving more than 100 calls per week from nurses
saying they are being mistreated. It
is shaming if we cannot do not protect the people that we recruit
to care for us.
And they may also badly let down clients who need care. Some forms of exploitation,
new forms may come to light, some may still fail to get attention. My
Noble Friend has mentioned the fish industry. Some may change, some may
not. In 2015 we did not achieve nearly enough for overseas domestic
workers and now care workers are exploited in similar ways because of
exploited in similar ways because of
the restrictions sponsors and all expectation is about money, so that
calls for upping skills to follow the money using financial investigation officers is important.
As is making more use of the tools that are available, especially civil
risking prevention orders. I believe plans were announced to three years ago to strengthen that legislation
perhaps to apply these orders to defendants on remand but it has not
happened. We had evidence that their use is patchy with different police forces having variable awareness of
them. People as well as tools, what
is happening with the independent guardians. Victim navigators who have just been mentioned are being
described as game changers.
They
provide information and support and information about what support is available. I had not myself thought about those criminal injuries
compensation. Other support is not
always like housing, available, housing is more than the roof. It is
safety and stability. Navigators embody what is essential, respect
for survivors. There are more
structural issues. One concrete form
about that across governmental working and no council has referred
to the confusing landscape was made by the National Audit Office in its
recent report on skilled work visas.
Data sharing between departments
such as the Home Office and heat now sharing data on working hours but not enough to allow the Home Office
not enough to allow the Home Office
to identify non-compliance. The state and independent research and
evidence are essential to the debate
to always call a spade a spade and they have talked importantly about the responsibility and
accountability. Another suggestion is extending the list of nonstatutory first responders for
the purposes of referral to the national mechanism.
The nonstatutory
responders have a pretty good success rate with decisions, certainly better than statutory
responders. It seems though that
more training is needed for first responders in interview techniques,
for instance. No one would deny that that iron RN is at best in limbo
with a real risk of trafficking. We should not have the situation of large numbers of people identified as possible victims by statutory
authorities then declining referral
to the NRM. Knowledge of the section 45 statutory defence victims who
commit an offence seems inadequate, as a lack of legal advice,
expertise, which means guilty pleas when they should not have been entered.
The offences within the
section are permitted, indeed logically, or offences which we will
come to. Inevitably, one enlist so much in a debate like this that the
Government, every Government, says in response to amendments to brief
legislation we keep all legislation under review. The Government says
the same in its response to our report which in part as Lord Watson
has said is really rather thin. There is no shortage of careful,
well researched thoughts and ideas, including from good employers to bring us up-to-date in both
legislation and practice.
On Wednesday I met some young people
who, as children, had been trafficked. Their recent achievements were truly impressive,
but a clinical and personal level we
waste people's keenness to contribute which is a word we often hear and their experience of the
processes is too often itself damaging. Of the process one said I
spent two years in my room waiting for a miracle. And as I still
waiting for a decision said I am
waiting years of my life, in fact it is almost a decade in this case,
waiting for just one decision.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
What a thought-provoking, challenging, and important debate which I think has more than adequately answered Lord Whitty's
adequately answered Lord Whitty's Oracle question on why this subject matters. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the Noble Lady
paying tribute to the Noble Lady Baroness O'Grady for her introduction and chairmanship of
introduction and chairmanship of this important committee, 2022 served on the committee and, of
served on the committee and, of course, the staff who have worked so hard to support them.
The report
hard to support them. The report that this House has received is comprehensive, but also sobering. It examines and evaluates very
14:08
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
adequately how we have gone from world leading in this area to
world leading in this area to identifying significant gaps over a period of time, not least because
period of time, not least because the changes in legislative architecture as outlined by the
noble and learned Lady class loss. This report has also identified
This report has also identified other areas that need to be examined. Such as carers, which
examined. Such as carers, which Baroness Berger and Lord Watson give
specific emphasis to.
The report highlights that the prosecution rate is far too low and that is something
that has been echoed by Baroness Goudie and my Noble Friends. To have
a prosecution rate of 1.81% in the
context of a prosecution rate for all crime in the UK at 7% is clearly
far too low. Now, seeing that, it is important to remember that officers
investigating these cases are faced with significant challenge. Around
one third of people referred to the National Referral Mechanism in 2023,
reported they were exploited overseas.
And it is naturally
difficult to stay in contact with a large number of foreign national victims who returned to the country
they came from whilst investigations were ongoing. And it underlines an
important point that Baroness Brady
made about the support for victims once they have made a complaint within the legal system. However, while acknowledging these
challenges, it must be stressed that legislation such as the important
livery act of 2015 of which on these benches we are very proud of the
leadership of my Noble Friends Lord McColl and Baroness Maidenhead and
Lord Bates.
But proud we are and recognise entirely that it was built
upon a consensus across all political parties and this issue is
not a political loophole to be used.
The act can only work to protect people when the threat of repercussions are affected. Criminals will only be deterred if
they are made to feel they are at a genuine risk of being prosecuted and
punished for the actions they have perpetrated. And it is incumbent upon the Government to make clear
their next steps in making these legal threats credible, I therefore
want to ask the Noble Lord the Minister and welcome him to the front bench for the first time at
his Government intends to do to support law enforcement bodies and their work to bring perpetrators of
Modern Slavery Act to justice.
And also to recognise the confused
landscape that my Noble Friend referred to for victims incoming
forward and see justice done. How will the Government send a clear message that a credible threat
exists to those who choose to profit
from this practice. Another point raised by the committee's report was around section 54 of the Modern
Slavery Act, which imposes a duty on UK-based businesses to make clear
the action they have taken to ensure that both business and even more importantly often their supply
chains are free of modern slavery and this is a point that has been
adequately raised today by Lord Watson as well as the rate for front
prelate, the Bishop of Bristol.
Unfortunately, not all companies are pyloric, and therefore vigilance
needs to continue as we go through. This cannot be a mere box ticking
exercise. This provision is an important part of the act which
places a burden on companies to take a deep dive into their own supply chains, beyond their own immediate
operations. To make sure that there are not inadvertently playing a role
in funding the organised criminals who first people into modern slavery. I know that I am joined by
many others in your Lordships house when I express, as my Noble Friend
has already said, my dismay that the
Government put members in The Other Place against supporting an amendment passed your Lordships house on the Great British Energy
Bill which would have held the Government to cease financial as if there exists credible evidence of
modern slavery in a major chain
supply of any company.
The Government needs to show leadership in working to uncover the scourge of
Modern Slavery Act, I therefore want to ask the Noble Lord the Minister
if the Government is not prepared to
commit its own bodies to act against modern and how can they demand that other companies take the same action? We cannot send mixed
messages to those who wish to avoid this legislation. I am aware that
the Government announced at the beginning of the year that it is in the process of considering how we
can strengthen the section 54 regime, including penalties for non-compliance.
In matters like this, sunshine is the best
disinfectant, and ensuring that companies are compelled to report their effectiveness means that
customers and investors and civil society can review these crucial
facts. We can therefore avoid consumers like my Noble Friend being
worried about the complicity that they may be taking part when buying products that they can't be sure of
and where these things have come
from. As we finish this debate, the end of this debate, I want to issue other minister that on this site we want to do all we can to ensure the
effectiveness of the Modern Slavery Act and we will be right behind you
in making sure that victims are supported through prosecution but
discontinued.
14:14
Lord Moraes (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Could I begin by thanking Noble
Lord for the very constructive way in which he closed. I want to begin
by thanking everyone who has contributed to this debate and I particularly good for to my Noble
Friend, Baroness O'Grady, to extend, perhaps, what the Noble Lord Council said if you want something done
well, Getty respected trade unionist
to your Select Committee. And I have
worked with the Noble Lady and it has been done very well.
This is a serious report. Doing serious
things. One is recommitting any Government, this Government, to the
fight against modern slavery. But, more importantly, to improving that response and I very much welcome
this report. This has been a
thorough and thoughtful debate. The
issues themselves are of the utmost parity permit has been reassuring for me to have this exposure to the wealth and experience and expertise that exists across the House. It is
also enough because it only debate, given that it is taking place just
after the 10th anniversary of the modern for act.
And on that note I
will pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness Lady May who was the then Home Secretary and was instrumental in getting this raking
piece of legislation onto the statute. In the committee's report,
the Government responded in December
as the House knows, but that was a very short time after the current
Government took office. Inevitably, I will read some of the points that were made in that response but
clearly we are now in March and that Governments policy is starting to
I know there have been many
criticisms of that approach, but I think it is accurate to say that on
the Modern Slavery Act, on action limited to deal with it, the
government is pursuing a positive path.
Why do I say that? You see the
activities, the energetic activities of the Minister who now has the
responsibility and that portfolio. We saw it yesterday and the other
place. We also see some improvements
to the approach. We want to see the
backlog for the decision-makers. Everyone has had over 100 new staff.
The backlog is now half the size as
it was in 2022, and noble Lords have
mentioned in our decisions that at least now the government is getting those numbers down.
That is
important, but of course, as the report said, we also need long-term
return of the system. The threat has evolved over time. The number of
noble Lords have said this, and
also, the crimes have changed significantly since the act was
passed. The scale is now very large, and there is some existential points
made by my noble friend Lord Whitty, but it is true that we are now dealing with massive categories. One
of the exploited residents or British citizens being exploited in work, sometimes very brutally.
We are dealing with people who come
through the system to work in this country, or perhaps not legally, but we deal with that whole category,
and then we have the sheer scale of
the issue of supply chains which are number of lords mentioned in the course of this debate, and that is
complex. The government has already introduced measures which will
support such a broad reform. This includes a stand-alone offensive criminal exploitation to go after
gangs who are lowering young people into violent crime, but it is also
to get to the heart of the matter in the area of work, the care sector, which noble Lords have been
mentioning.
All the areas in the shadows where people are suffering,
we are trying to address those areas, so we are establishing the agency and I will say more about
that later. That has been established with the employments rights Bill. It will ensure a more
streamlined approach, and this week, the Home Office published a
significant update to the
transparency in supplied guidance. This will further support businesses
to develop high quality businesses, and more importantly, take concrete action to reply with the spirit of
the Modern Slavery Act.
Clearly further work is needed. That is what
the committee is about, and that is why the government will also be
launching a public consultation on how we can improve the process of
identifying the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The government will be working with
survivors, first responders, law enforcement and devolved
Administration. And if I can now
Administration. And if I can now
turn to the many detailed points. First of all, for the chair of the
committee, Baroness O'Grady raised
the critical points, and to begin first with immigration legislation,
and what will be repealed, the government on this understand is that we have to take meaningful
steps to decouple the issues of
immigration and trafficking, but also deal with the effects of previous legislation.
So, the government is ensure that the
portfolio for modern slavery is looking at violence against women
and girls in recognition of the governments priorities in this
space. I did think I was answering
for the Home Office, and I will not take any of those invitations because as I go, you will see the
complexity of the departmental interest in this area. If I take
procurement for example, it is all of the departments mentioned in the house this afternoon, but certainly,
we now have a minister with the specific portfolio, a legacy of the 2015 act, and it gives the branding
a kind of central point of focus for
a kind of central point of focus for
tackling modern slavery.
And to answer the points specifically, the
border security and immigration Bill seeks to repeal the modern slavery
provisions. It will repeal the modern slavery provisions, but that hasn't happened yet, so let's not be
sacked on my first outing as a minister. So I know it seeks to
repeal the provisions linked in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. This
would ensure there is no blanket ban
seeking protections. The modern
slavery measure would, if commenced, allow more offenders to be considered for removal from modern slavery protections and the public
order, like serious threats to
national security, but the repeal of the 2023 act is there.
As with all
disqualifications, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Many
of these cases are complex. Decisions consider public order risk against the individuals need for
modern slavery and specific support, and that would take account of
convictions to offences and the exploitation of the individual to commit those offences. On the immigration White Paper, the
immigration White Paper, the
government recognises the values and the contribution that legal migration makes to this country.
Many exploited people are coming to do job that need to be done in the
care sector and other sectors which has been said this afternoon.
Migration has always been an
important part of history but the system should still be properly
controlled and managed. In the upcoming paper, it will set out a
comprehensive plan to restore order to a broken immigration system, growing our domestic workforce and
growing our domestic workforce and
end some reliance and boost economic growth, and of course, that is the matter before us today. We will not
exploit those people and everything we can to take action so that they are not exploited.
My noble friend
and another of other noble Lords
raised the issue of the care sector.
I will have to get used to this. The
noble Lord Lord Randall, Baroness
Lawrence, Baroness Barker, and of
course, the Right Reverend Prelate
Bishop of Bristol. But to be very clear, the issue of the care sector
has become central because this is a current focus for where we see the
exploitation, and to answer the points made, the government believes
that everyone deserves to be treated fairly at work and awarded for their contribution to the economy.
The
government is deeply concerned about the issues raised in the care sector including unethical employment
practices by some sponsors of the
care worker Visa. Now, the Home Office has a zero tolerance for sponsors that seek to exploit
workers and will take action against anyone found to be doing so. What is
the evidence of that? I would say that if you see that the Home Office
now does revoke sponsors licences if
they fail to meet their obligations, the matter is evidence that that is happening, and I know that was an
issue in the report.
The care section has been part of the Labour
abuse authority, but we have been
working with the GLA to work with the care sector. It oversees care
workers as part of the system. I
should add to this but a number of
lords raised the issue of the agency, and as I mentioned, I should
agency, and as I mentioned, I should
also say that we are now in the process of the employment Bill of creating a fair work agency.
The
idea in relation to modern slavery and tackling modern slavery is that
we are bringing under one roof multiple agencies that would have had some purview on tackling modern slavery, and those agencies include
the abuse authority, the employment
standards Inspectorate and the HMRC Minimum Wage Act team. Now, the issue here which I think is been
raised this afternoon as if this will improve things or not improve
things. The idea is the same idea behind the creation of a
recognisable way of fighting modern slavery, that is having an act, having 2015 act, having a single
having 2015 act, having a single
point of focus, and here, if you see that under the new agency, looking
at tackling modern slavery, I think you can see that there will be
investigations under the fraud act which has been a lower threshold that we had with those individual
agencies, so we can probably
prosecute more, tackle the issue
more in a much more effective way.
I want to turn to the points raised on
the right to work, and the
vulnerability of victims within the immigration system, and this is a broad theme that I want to provide
an answer to. When victims right to work, having leave to remain, being
exploited, they are British. Victims with a right to work in the UK can
do so as part of the national referral mechanism. Support workers
through the modern slavery victim care contract actively work with victims to support them with
employment.
This includes access of
service, work coaches, employment and benefits support based on
practices of modern slavery victims.
Victims that have made a grounds decision for temporary permission to
stay under permission. They will have approach to public funds, no
prohibition of work, and they may also be able to enter higher
education. I should also mention that Baroness O'Grady raised many of
these issues, but she also talked
about fair pay and so on, and gave the example of good practice for the
the example of good practice for the
Visa scheme, and while we have consultations where we look forward to those responses, I think it is
important to take the workplace
important to take the workplace
justice Visa scheme and other interesting laws that have been passed, for example, in Australia,
we have a situation where they are putting the power back on a victims hands against exploitative
employers.
That is a new law that
was raised, and it is certainly the kind of thing that we should watch because it is an area and
protections like the justice Visa are interesting to watch to see how
they unfold. If I can turn to the
enforcement of the Modern Slavery Act which a number of noble Lords raised, the government will continue
to work closely with partners. I am
going over time, so I will speed up. We will work forward to make sure
action has been taken to bring the perpetrators of this horrific crime
to justice.
Over the next year, the National police lead in modern slavery and organised crime
immigration unit will be works to develop a framework for the
investigation of modern slavery to support police forces domestic league, to secure better outcomes,
as was raised with police forces across Europe and other areas to
I want to turn to supply chains,
which was raised by the Bishop and a
number of other colleagues. And this
issue is vitally important. It is a growing area of tackling Modern Slavery Bill step Government is committed to working with
international business partners to ensure global supply chains are free
from human and labour rights.
We encourage businesses to monitor their local supply to and to take steps to address and remedy any
instances of modern slavery they may
recover. And to answer the point of the noble Baroness burger, it is the
case that the Government takes the approach that sustainable business is useless without ensuring that it
is ethical and moral. That is the
approach of the Government. We have seen a range of stakeholders from civil society organisations to investors and the media scrutinising
and scrutiny -- not slavery statements pushing us to go further.
There is some achievement here but
the Government knows much more needs to be done on supply. As I mentioned this week the Home Office published
a significant update to the transparency and supply chains
guidance which will support businesses to produce high-quality statements. To further enhance transparency in the supply chains,
the Home Office slavery statement registry will bring together all
modern slavery statements into one place. It has provided a notable source of transparency and
accountability for corporations. Register now hosts over 17,000 statements, covering over 58,000
organisations.
The Government is working on several improvements to
the registry to increase the number of statements being uploaded voluntarily. We are also, and I know
this point was made by a number of noble Lords, about the quality of
data which, of course, was a big issue in constructing the report.
And I know the Home Office is engaged very much in improving the
engaged very much in improving the
quality of data that we have. I just want to mention one public
procurement point which was also raised.
When I have the public procurement at 2023 that will come into force in February and I do want
to mention on this that while there
is compelling evidence for Modern Slavery Bill supplier supply chains we also have to ensure that Government understands the
importance of ensuring positive businesses do not take a share of the 400 million the public sector
spends on goods and services each year, so there is evidence to show that the Government is developing good tools to help public bodies put
these policies into practice, including the Modern Slavery Act assessment tool.
The public bodies
can exclude suppliers from public procurement if they need to, if there is compelling evidence. I know it has been said in some places that
there needs to be a conviction before that can happen, but I think it is compelling evidence that needs
it is compelling evidence that needs
to be produced. I will just speed
this up and I apologise if I have not answered any other specific
questions, but I do want to make some closing remarks.
First of all, to The Chair of committee, my Noble
Friend Baroness O'Grady. I will
contact my Noble Friend Lord Hanson to put together a meeting. I think
that will also help to maintain the momentum of the work in the report.
To keep moving on these ideas. Also with as much cross-party support as
possible and I will set that meeting up and ensure that many of the
points raised today and also not raised today will be answered in such a meeting.
Modern slavery has
no place in our society. It must be dealt with serious prejudice. There is always work to do, of course, and
the insight and knowledge displayed here today will be of no doubt great importance as we develop our
approach. In the meantime we have gone some way to issuing noble Lords of the government's steadfast
commitment to rooting out the crimes, stopping perpetrators, and, most importantly, supporting
**** Possible New Speaker ****
survivors. Before the Noble Lord sits down, could he answer the question will
could he answer the question will the Government stop buying solar panels made by slave labour in
China?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
China? On this question on the supply
chains, I attempted to answer that specific point without mentioning the solar panels, of course. And the point is that the Government is
point is that the Government is committed through a sustainable business approach to ensuring that
we do not buy products which are the product of slave labour. And the threshold for that is not, for
example, the solar panels manufacturers were convicted of
crime in China. In fact the threshold should be compelling evidence that they have done that,
so I think that we are moving towards a positive place, but no one
would argue that this is an easy question.
The global supply chains
we are dealing with provide so much of what we purchase and what we take
in this country, but I think we are moving in the correct direction on the question of supply chains for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the comment position. I thank the noble Lords for what I think have been very powerful contributions today. And
contributions today. And contributions that demonstrate the strength of that cross-party
strength of that cross-party continuing commitment, although I do think it has been a very good debate. I also want to thank my
14:37
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
debate. I also want to thank my Noble Friend the Minister for his
response. I cannot mention every name in my brief response, partly in the interest of time and partly, if
I am honest, because I am still practising this role, but I was, however, really struck by Lord
Randall's opening comments that none of us can be confident
comfortable.the food we eat and the
clothes we wear is free of Modern Slavery Act that mixes composite and I would argue it makes those of us
with some power obligated to do something about it and take action.
So, whether it is sexual
exportation, domestic servitude, county lines or labour abuses,
whether that is onshore or offshore, as Baroness Berger pointed out, the common thread running through Modern
Slavery Act is the pursuit of profit
for the dehumanisation of people. Lord Whitty talked about absolute
control. And as Lord Campsall reminded us, this is a terrible crime that should be tackled as
crime that should be tackled as
such. I do want to say that because of a noble Lords may not be aware, that my Noble Friend the Minister
has a very long traffic called being a champion of workers rights and I
know that he understands that
dangerously corrosive impact of dehumanisation, both on vulnerable individuals and on society as a
whole.
Many of us have recognised that the Government is already
taking steps to tackle extreme exploitation and we welcome the positive commitment to engage with
the committees recommendations, including a further meeting as a trade unionist sometimes the only outcome of a meeting is to secure
another meeting. So, I am taking
that genuinely as a win. However, I would encourage the Minister to relay our concern that if we are to
consign Modern Slavery Act to his history and all of its vicious varieties than the Government must
go further and faster.
Lord Smith
talked about how rarely we discussed prevention preventing Modern Slavery
Act the first place. Missing red flags. The importance of
international cooperation. And I think that we would all agree that the balance of power has swung too
far in favour of Modern Slavery Act
criminals. To write, victims must be empowered and the police reports,
inspectorates and civic society, as
Lord Whitty and Baroness had with also pointed out, must be properly
resourced.
Neither, as Baroness Butler-Sloss stressed, should the
Government slide away from updating immigration legislation. The
immigration laws, the imperative is
clear. Just having a struggle with this, to the Right Reverend Pollard,
the referent of Bristol, and Lord Watson, also talked about the importance of strengthening due
diligence in supply chains. And we are keen, as a committee, to see
much more ambitious policy on this
front. I think the Minister should take heart from the appetite the change from our cross-party committee that I should also gently
for one him that we will continue to hold Government to account on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
progress. That is the very least that moderns is an survivors deserve. Well done.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Well done. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the
House due now adjourn.
This debate has concluded