Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Kevin Brennan.]

I thank the House for allowing me the debate. I welcome the current consultations on nutrition and hydration in schools. Like many others, I was shocked by some of the ingredients that are used to feed our children through school dinners and the amount of junk food and drink available during the school day.

I understand and applaud the need to examine closely the drinks and snacks that are available throughout the school day from tuck shops and vending machines, and to ensure where possible that those drinks and snacks are healthy and beneficial. However, I have some serious concerns about the recommendations of the school meals review panel on the drinks that should be allowed in schools and their impact on a company based in my constituency—Waters and Robsons of Morpeth, Northumberland, manufacturers of Abbey Well natural mineral waters.

The school meals review panel recommendations on drinks are that

"The only drinks available should be water (still or fizzy) skimmed or semi-skimmed milk, pure fruit juices, yoghurt and milk drinks with less than 10 per cent. added sugar or a combination of these (for example smoothies). There should be easy access to free, fresh, chilled drinking water".

Waters and Robsons have worked closely with local education authorities to produce a low-calorie drink that has natural flavours, contains no artificial flavours or colours and also contains no sugar. It is sweetened with sucralose, a natural sugar alternative, which has fewer than 5 calories per 250 ml serving.

The company has also developed a new bottle to replace canned soft drinks in vending machines, and it is on the approved list of suppliers to schools in 60 local authority areas. That will change if the recommendations are accepted and those excellent drinks are banned from schools. How could a perfectly healthy low-calorie product, approved by the Food Standards Agency, find itself on a blacklist when it should be hydrating children and playing an important role in the fight against obesity?

In October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced at the Labour party conference that her Department was launching a new initiative to make school meals available and to ensure that they would be much more healthy. The initiative will have the support of the vast majority of parents and teachers, but to achieve that goal, low-calorie drinks need to be added to the list.

The consultation document, "Turning the Tables", which was published on 3 October, dealt only with school meals but strongly advised that the policy be rolled out for other types of food and drink available throughout the school day. I am worried that the report was rushed out to meet the conference deadline, and was not seen by a number of members of the panel before publication. I cannot believe that all members of the panel agreed that intense sweeteners, which are being promoted by the Food Standards Agency as a healthy choice, are all bad for children.

The only drink allowed for the purposes of hydration is plain water. While I applaud the promotion of water, I suspect that many children would prefer an alternative. If the only choice is between plain water, full fruit juice, milk or sugar-sweetened dairy drinks, the calories will pile on and children will still feel thirsty.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and on his speech. As someone who has served as a school governor, may I point out that many schools receive valuable income from the drinks machines in their establishments? If the machines could contain healthy drinks, schools' income would be maintained and children would be better off. That would be better than banning the machines altogether.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that excellent point. I shall refer to that matter later.

I am convinced that a small group of agencies is actively promoting the idea that intense sweeteners are unhealthy, even though there is no evidence to support that. In fact, the opposite would appear to be the case, as the Food Standards Agency is actively promoting them as a healthy option.

The Health Education Trust was represented on the school meals review panel by its chief executive, who I suspect is the main opponent of the use of intense sweeteners. I understand from discussions with Waters and Robson that the HET offers its services to food and drinks producers as a consultant, giving advice on food and drinks that it feels able to endorse as suitable for schools, at a cost of £500 a day, along with £100 per brand endorsement. It also runs a healthy vending project, in which an operator must pay £500 to display the HET endorsement logo, and 5p commission on every vend through the machine.

Interestingly, the HET endorses Volvic Touch of Fruits, which is produced by a French company and contains 11 teaspoons of sugar per litre. By any standards, that is a lot of sugar. Yet the HET told Abbey Well Foods that it would not endorse its product even if it were to reformulate it to a similar profile. When Abbey Well asked to meet the HET in order to try to understand its position, it was informed that it would have to pay the normal consultation fee prior to any such meeting. Will my hon. Friend the Minister examine the make-up of the HET to determine whether there are genuine conflicts of interest among members of the committee?

In order to address some of the problems, the British Soft Drinks Association met the Department for Education and Skills on 23 November. I understand that little progress was made there. The DFES was unable to answer any questions relating to why intense sweeteners were excluded from the proposals, but suggested that it might be because they helped children to develop a sweet tooth. However, they were unable to supply any evidence to support that view, other than anecdotal evidence. The DFES was unable to respond, even when it was explained that the amount of sweeteners could be adjusted to meet any desired level.

The DFES confirmed that a new panel, the school food trust, had been set up to examine rolling out the recommendations to include all food and drink in schools, including snacks and the contents of vending machines. I understand that those members of the school meals review panel who were available would be invited to sit on that panel. There are no prizes, therefore, for guessing what their recommendations might be. They are due to report in January after a six-week period, and the main role of gathering the evidence has been allocated to a director of the Compass catering group. Compass has a potentially significant financial stake in the supply of food and drinks products to schools. Perhaps it is not therefore the best choice for the role.

The current proposals appear to rule out all carbonates and still and juice drinks, regardless of calorie or juice content. Many drinks classified as "healthy choice" by the Food Standards Agency in relation to advertising to children would also be banned. Rising concerns about calorie intake and obesity have moved the soft drinks industry into developing products to meet the demand for drinks that have less or no sugar but that continue to provide tasty refreshment and hydration.

Consumers of all ages have responded with great enthusiasm to low-calorie drinks. Consumption of regular sweetened drinks fell from 96 litres per head in 1984 to 84 litres per head in 2004. Over the same period, low-calorie drink and bottled water consumption rose from 10 litres per head to 147 litres per head. In 2004, the share of the soft drink market held by regular sweetened drinks was 27 per cent., while low-calorie drinks had 49 per cent., bottled water had 15 per cent., and fruit juices had 9 per cent. There is a danger, therefore, that if a choice of healthy, tasty, low-calorie products is not allowed in schools, children will vote with their feet and seek potentially unhealthy products from outside school.

In the main report, "Turning the Tables: Transforming School Food", section 10 of the recommendations states:

"We believe our recommendations will lead to the consumption of healthier combinations of lunchtime foods by primary and secondary school children. This improved quality will clearly mean some increased costs but those costs should be set against the health and other benefits. Redressing the imbalance in children's diets will contribute towards a reduction of obesity and diseases such as tooth decay in young people. In the longer term the changes we recommend now should reduce the chances of young people suffering from various chronic diseases in later life. But more than that new standards can set the scene for holistic changes in the way young people perceive food and health, and can pave the way for wider changes in our food culture."

I support that statement in its entirety. I am not advocating allowing high-fat, high-sugar or high-salt products. Unless we allow a wider range of healthy foods, snacks and drinks, however, more children will be tempted to buy and consume their food and drink outside school. The regulatory impact assessment released with the report recognises that children might react negatively to the proposed changes, resulting, in its own words, in the consumption of unhealthy foods outside school.

I started my speech by applauding the efforts of the Department and I shall conclude in the same way. The initiative is excellent. It is flawed, however, in not allowing a wider range of healthy options to be available throughout the school day. There is nothing wrong with tuck shops and vending machines in schools, provided that the school sets the standards for the products available. As Mr. Hollobone mentioned, for many schools it is a useful form of extra income. Sixteen per cent. of two to 15-year-olds in the United Kingdom are obese, and the figure is much higher in some areas. To help fight that rising problem, low-calorie products from an approved list should be allowed.

Will my hon. Friend address the following questions? Will he allow a member of the Food Standards Agency to become a member of the advisory committee? How will he ensure that there is no conflict of interest for anyone sitting on the advisory committee? Will he make public the evidence used by the advisory committee for rejecting any ingredient? I realise, of course, that there are a number of genuine fears about the use of some artificial sweeteners, and it could be an ideal time, when we are considering food and drink in schools, to widen the debate on this issue.

However, the drinks that are currently supplied to 60 local education authorities and manufactured in my constituency are those with which I am concerned today. Abbey Well drinks contain no artificial colours or flavours, are made with natural mineral water and are sweetened with sucralose, which has the same profile as sugar but with only five calories per serving. The average consumption of between 40 and 120 cases a week in each secondary school that the company supplies demonstrates that such products are both popular and beneficial, and I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that they continue to be consumed in schools.

I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Murphy on securing the debate. It is an unexpected pleasure to join him and respond on behalf of the Government, with my friend and colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend Phil Hope, sitting beside me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck presented his case in typical fashion. He is a good and committed local MP, and he championed the interests of a company in his constituency. His description of that company's innovatory approach, its range of products and its success in securing important contracts throughout the country was impressive, and I understand his concerns.

My hon. Friend mentioned the panel and its report. As he probably knows, the recommendations are out for consultation. The consultation will continue until the end of the month, and obviously no decisions have yet been made. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take account of what has been said this evening for the purposes of the consultation, and that others in his Department will read the report of the debate. In particular, I can reassure my hon. Friend that what he said about the advisory committee will be considered.

My hon. Friend is plainly as committed as the Government to meeting children's need for healthy food as an essential part of their learning and development. We all share an interest in children's health, diet and development. We have heard reports that our children's diet contains far too much fat, salt and sugar, and that obesity levels are rising as a result. In 2002, one in five boys and one in four girls in the United Kingdom were categorised as either overweight or obese, and according to experts the situation will deteriorate further unless we take significant action.

Will the Minister give way?

I will, although it is normal practice to seek the permission of the Member who has secured the debate as well as the Minister before intervening in an Adjournment debate.

Order. That is not strictly true of interventions. It normally applies to major contributions to Adjournment debates. In any event, as we have time in hand, the normal customs do not apply on this occasion.

I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will give way.

I thank the Minister and Mr. Murphy.

The Coca-Cola company is based in my constituency. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that major drinks manufacturers of that kind can play a major part in the campaign for healthier, lower-calorie, vitamin-enriched drinks in schools. Indeed, many are eager to do so. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

The established industry is beginning to make serious representations about the contribution that it could make, and we welcome them.

The problems of diet, health and obesity among children have been recognised, and there is now a real will in Government to make improvements. More nutritious school food could help to reduce the risk of diet-related health problems such as obesity, but also of cancer, coronary heart disease and diabetes in later life.

For some time, the Government have been committed to promoting whole school approaches to health. School meal standards were reintroduced in April 2001. The first standards, incidentally, were in place for more than 20 years and it was promised then that they would be reviewed after a time. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has made clear, that time has now come. The House will also be aware that in March this year, the Secretary of State announced a package of measures designed to improve significantly the quality of school food and committed £235 million of funding to help achieve it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned the school meals review panel—an expert group that was convened by the Department as a temporary advisory group. The panel comprises 24 members from a variety of professional backgrounds, including field and academic dieticians and nutritionists, head teachers, governors and other school staff, support staff, catering and industry professionals. The Department also invited observers from other Departments that had a contribution to make to the panel's proceedings to attend its meetings.

The panel's remit was to advise the Government on how best to meet their commitments in the public health White Paper, which set out to improve school food through the revision of school meals standards aimed at delivering a reduction in pupils' consumption of fat, salt and sugar and an increase in the consumption of fruit, vegetables and other foods containing essential nutrients. Anyone living with young children or who has had them in the past will be aware of the scale of the challenge to get them to eat healthily and nutritiously.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the panel's report was entitled, "Turning the Tables: Transforming School Food". He quoted quite extensively from it and I welcome the clear support that he gave to its principal approach and findings when it was published. As I said earlier, it remains subject to consultation that runs to 31 December. The report recommends far-reaching changes to the standard of food and drink in schools. It recommends that tough minimum food-based standards should be implemented for school lunches by September 2006, stipulating the portions of food that should be served, and, importantly, restricting children's choices to ensure that they cannot opt out of healthier food.

Anyone concerned about those issues would recognise that such measures will work best when children receive consistent messages about food from schools. Most would accept that there is no point in setting strict standards for lunch time food, if children can then access foods that have a low nutritional value or are high in sugar and salt elsewhere on the school premises at other times during the school day. To that end, the panel also recommends that standards similar to those for school lunches should also apply to tuck shops, vending machines and other outlets.

I was at pains to point out in my contribution that I would never suggest that food or drink that was high in sugar or fat should be available in schools. Rather, I pointed out the danger of the present policy—that unless a sufficient variety of healthy, low-fat, low-sugar and low-calorie foods is available, children will be tempted to eat outside school or bring unhealthy stuff into school with them. That was my point.

My hon. Friend did indeed make those points clear in his contribution. What I am trying to set out clearly now are the panel's recommendations. To be clear, the consultation is not on the settled policy of the Government that will result from the process, but on the recommendations of the panel. Views have been invited and this evening's debate provides another valuable contribution.

The school food trust, a non-departmental public body, is being set up. It will give independent support to schools and parents to help make the transformation to healthier school food. It will also undertake the work necessary to develop standards for other school food.

The school meals review panel wants children to drink water—and only water—or drinks with a nutritional value. Its view is that substituting any other drink for a healthy drink is a wasted opportunity. In "Vending healthy drinks: A guide for schools", the Food Standards Agency recommends replacing carbonated drinks with a simple healthy offer of water, milk or juice. It has also developed a nutrient profiling model that identifies food types and allocates points, depending on the level of each nutrient per 100 g of food. Products are then categorised on the basis of their overall points score. However, the model has been developed for use in relation to advertising controls only, as part of the Government's programme to regulate broadcast advertising to children of foods that are high in fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar. Food and drink that the model might categorise as "healthy" may not necessarily meet the more stringent standards recommended by the school meals review panel—a point about which my hon. Friend may be concerned.

There has been some concern and confusion among schools, local authorities and other stakeholders about the Health Education Trust's relationship with the Government. My hon. Friend touched on several matters relating to the HET, which is a charity formed to promote the development of health education of young people in the UK. The HET's director was a member of the school meals review panel and actively contributed to the proposed new standards on which we are consulting. The HET is independent of the Government and as such, the Government rightly have no direct control over its activities. I understand, however, that officials have been in touch with the HET to ensure that its advice is based on Government recommendations and standards currently reflected in published Government toolkits.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has already indicated that she is prepared to take tough decisions on which food and drinks will no longer be provided on school premises, where there is a case for taking such decisions. However, matters of detail such as the inclusion or exclusion of a particular diet—for example, those sweetened with artificial sweeteners—or of carbonated drinks will need to be dealt with once the consultation has finished. The products produced by the company in my hon. Friend's constituency fall into that category. I underline the general point that I made at the outset: no decisions have yet been taken and the purpose of the consultation is to bottom out some of the more detailed issues. My hon. Friend has made a timely contribution to this process.

I can assure my hon. Friend that decisions will be made only after the responses to the consultation have been properly collated and analysed, and only after obtaining further expert advice from the school food trust and the FSA. I hope that he will draw some reassurance from the answers that I have given, and that they will prove useful to him in his continuing discussions with the company in his constituency. If there are further points that he or the company wish to make, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be only too pleased to receive them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Six o'clock.