Lords Chamber
Friday 28th March 2025
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 9 months, 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:05
Debate: Report from the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee: 'Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system'
-
**** 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
Debate: Report from the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee: 'Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system'
**** 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)
-
-
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
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
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
10:19
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
-
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
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.
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.
10:25
Baroness Browning (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Browning (Conservative)
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
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
10:32
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Krebs (Crossbench)
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.
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)
-
-
The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
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
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
10:44
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Labour)
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.
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.
10:50
Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
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?
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?
10:56
Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)
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.
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)
-
-
Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
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
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
11:11
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Conservative)
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
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)
-
-
Lord Bethell (Conservative)
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,
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)
-
-
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
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
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
11:27
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
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.
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)
-
-
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
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.
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.
11:40
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)
-
-
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)
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
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
11:48
Baroness Batters (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Batters (Crossbench)
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
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
11:51
Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
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
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
11:59
Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)
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
-- 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)
-
-
Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
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
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
12:27
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
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
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
12:33
Debate: Report from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee: 'The Modern Slavery Act 2015: becoming world-leading again'
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This Motion for debate, report on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 committee, Baroness O'Grady.
Debate: Report from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee: 'The Modern Slavery Act 2015: becoming world-leading again'
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This Motion for debate, report on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 committee, Baroness O'Grady.
12:34
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
**** 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
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
**** 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
12:45
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Conservative)
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
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
12:51
Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
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
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
12:58
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
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
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
13:03
The Lord Bishop of Bristol (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Bristol (Bishops)
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
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
13:10
Lord Bates (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bates (Conservative)
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
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
13:16
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
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
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
13:22
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Conservative)
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
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
13:28
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
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
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
13:35
Lord Kempsell (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Kempsell (Conservative)
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
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)
-
-
Lord Whitty (Labour)
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
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)
-
-
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Conservative)
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
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)
-
-
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
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
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
14:07
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Conservative)
-
-
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Conservative)
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.
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.
14:13
Lord Moraes (Labour)
-
-
Lord Moraes (Labour)
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
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
14:36
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
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.
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.