It is a pleasure and a privilege to debate this important subject under your guiding hand, Mr. Cummings, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

There are good public health reasons why the activities of companies marketing breast-milk substitutes should be controlled, including the safety and health of new-born babies. Powdered formula is not sterile, so care needs to be taken over preparation to avoid contamination. Furthermore, the activities of companies should be controlled so as not to undermine efforts to promote breastfeeding.

The international standard for such control is the World Health Organisation’s international code on the marketing of breast-milk substitutes. The WHO is an organisation of member states, 118 of which, including the United Kingdom, voted to adopt the code as long ago as 1981; the United States of America was the only nation to vote against it. Ever since, we have been signed up to the WHO code and I dare say that Ministers have visited other countries and recommended it to them. However, our domestic law has not yet implemented the code and even though an opportunity to implement it has now arisen, the Minister has not proposed that we should do so.

I shall use the debate, therefore, to make representations to the Minister. It is not too late for us to be bolder and to implement fully the WHO code. We have a law to control the marketing activities of companies that make and sell infant formula, but it is widely recognised that it is not sufficiently effective. The debate comes at a time when the Minister is seeking to tighten that law to make it more effective. At present, I do not think that her proposal for changing the law takes us as far as it should, particularly towards full implementation of the WHO code. My purpose in this short debate is to urge her to go further.

My interest in the matter stems from my involvement in the public health arguments in favour of breastfeeding. Those arguments include a number of powerful facts. For example, babies breastfed for at least three months are at less risk of gastroenteritis; during the first six months of life, breastfed babies are five times less likely than formula-fed children to suffer from urinary tract infections; there is evidence that breastfeeding protects children from obesity in later years, and there is now extremely strong evidence that breastfeeding protects mothers against breast cancer and babies against excess weight gain, which is linked to an increased risk of cancer.

Such facts are common knowledge among health professionals and help to explain why the WHO and the Department of Health recommend that babies be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of their lives, yet in the UK only about 2 per cent. of babies are exclusively breastfed at six months. Breastfeeding is the healthiest and cheapest way to feed a baby, yet, at the other end of the equation, the UK has one of the lowest initial rates of breastfeeding in Europe.

I am no absolutist in my promotion of breastfeeding. I recognise that some parents rely on infant formula, because breastfeeding is not possible for a physical, psychological or broader social reason. I would go further: this is a free country, so I accept that some parents will choose formula over breastfeeding for other reasons. Indeed, the WHO code recognises that there is a legitimate market for infant formula. However, it does not trust companies with a commercial interest in promoting their products to give out objective public health messages on matters of such importance.

Whether the issue is taking care not to undermine breastfeeding or ensuring the health and well-being of babies fed infant formula, the WHO says that the responsibility lies with Governments. Parents should be protected from partisan claims and should receive impartial advice and guidance, which is why I am a founding member of, and a parliamentary champion for, the breastfeeding manifesto coalition. It is an alliance of 39 organisations, including five royal colleges, trade unions, such as Unison, Unite and the Community Practitioners’ and Health Visitors’ Association, and hugely respected groups, such as the Baby Feeding Law Group, La Leche League, the National Childbirth Trust, Save the Children and UNICEF. The coalition also has broad support among all political parties in the House and another place. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) in the Chamber; she is one of the parliamentary supporters of the manifesto.

In my parliamentary experience of more than 10 years, I have always felt that, although the arguments about breastfeeding and public health matters are strong, they have not resonated as strongly in decision making as they ought to have done. I think that that is because the organisations that I have just named have not spoken with one voice. The development of the coalition, therefore, is significant in the promotion of arguments in favour of breastfeeding, and I hope that the Minister and her Department will benefit from knowing the views of those who share the Government’s ambitions in promoting a healthy start to life for all children.

Those of us who support the manifesto look forward to living in a society where women feel enabled to initiate and continue breastfeeding for as long as they wish; where parents are supported in making informed choices about feeding their babies, and where everyone is aware of the significant benefits associated with breastfeeding. One of the manifesto’s seven key objectives is for our country to adopt the WHO international code on the marketing of breast-milk substitutes and subsequent relevant resolutions. The code acknowledges that manufacturers and distributors of breast-milk substitutes have an important and constructive role to play in infant feeding. Nevertheless, it states that Governments should have a responsibility to ensure that parents receive objective and consistent information on both breastfeeding and the safe and appropriate use of formula. The code specifically states that advertising and promotion by manufacturers and distributors should not be allowed.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a proliferation in mother and baby magazines and other media of advertisements for follow-on milk, which many people believe are for mainstream breast-milk substitutes? Does he also agree that, in addition to the work of the organisations that he mentioned, it would aid the debate if the Minister could commission independent advice on the impact and effect of those adverts?

The hon. Lady puts her finger on possibly the most important issue that I wanted to raise, and makes a suggestion to the Minister that I hope we can pursue later in the debate.

Since 1995, the UK has had a law intended to protect parents from the promotion of formula milk. However, the law is not working; parents say that they constantly see adverts for formula milk. Companies’ promotional activities have simply become cleverer and more aggressive since 1995. In particular, they have realised, as the hon. Lady says, that they can legally advertise what they call follow-on formula for babies over the age of six months. They have cottoned on to a strategy of advertising that product that also promotes infant formula for younger babies, which is supposed to be illegal.

I have brought with me some examples of the type of adverts that the hon. Lady has just referred to, which were placed in magazines. I do not know whether the Minister is shown such adverts by her advisers when she is making policy decisions on the subject, but they are clear examples of that strategy in action. In one example, there are two adverts on the page, side by side. One advert goes into journals for professionals and promotes formula, which is not illegal. The other advert goes to magazines that parents would typically read and ostensibly it promotes the follow-on formula for babies over the age of six months. However, to look at the two adverts side by side is quite instructive, because, to the untrained eye, they are both the same and they are both promoting the same thing.

The current law, which is intended to protect the parent’s right to receive objective and accurate information about feeding their baby, is not working. Commercial pressure remains a factor in how parents decide to feed their children. After all, the market is big money for the companies. The UK market in formula milk nearly trebled from £119 million in 1995 to £329 million in 2006. During the increase in commercial pressure over that decade and more, parents have been increasingly influenced, as polls of women taken last year showed. For example, 60 per cent. of women polled said they had seen adverts that are supposed to be illegal and 89 per cent. said that they associated SMA with infant formula.

UNICEF says that two main loopholes in the current law allow such advertising to happen. The first loophole is that advertising formula for babies under six months is banned, but advertising it for babies over six months is allowed. By ensuring that their milks for younger and older babies are almost identical, manufacturers also ensure that an advert for one automatically promotes the other. Secondly, to prevent information materials for parents from being used to promote specific products, the current law prohibits companies from putting formula milk brand names on information that they give to mothers. However, they are allowed to put their company logo on it. By changing their logos and milk brand names to be near-identical, companies have ensured that their information materials can continue to promote their milks. As names and logos on information materials have therefore become both legal and illegal at the same time, it has become impossible for trading standards to enforce the current law.

Those weaknesses have been recognised at European Union level and in 2006 a directive was passed—directive 2006/141/EC—to tighten European-wide law. Of course, the Minister’s new regulations will transpose that tightening of the law into our domestic law. The regulations, along with new guidance that she proposes to publish, aim to tighten our law in respect of the labelling and advertising of infant formula. In addition to those regulations and the guidance, the Minister promises a review of how the changes are operating 12 months later. It is in respect of that review that the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole becomes relevant.

Before I explain why I am arguing that the Minister is not going far enough, let me acknowledge and welcome all that is being done in other ways to improve our country’s breastfeeding rates. For example, the Department of Health is demonstrating a good, strong commitment to delivering widely education and information that is necessary to help parents make an informed choice in favour of breastfeeding their children. Examples include greater engagement with the relevant stakeholders, support for the national breastfeeding week in May and the Department’s stated intention of making its national breastfeeding week promotions year-round. Another example is the new National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance on antenatal and post-natal care, which is very positive about the role of breastfeeding. That is underpinned by the national service framework for children and maternity services and aided by the UNICEF baby friendly initiative.

The Government have given the Department of Health a public service agreement target for improving child health and well-being, which is very welcome, and there is now an indicator regarding the prevalence of breastfeeding at six to eight weeks. Also, regarding the wider Government position, consultation on the single equality law has shown a welcome determination to protect parents who feed their babies in public places from discrimination.

With that background of good work, it is a pity that the new regulations fall short of implementing the World Health Organisation code. Many argue that failing to do so will mean that mothers’ and children’s health will continue to be put at risk. I ask Members to consider this: follow-on formula is suitable only for babies over the age of six months, say the manufacturers and distributors, but the confusion caused by the marketing ploys that I have described creates the risk of babies under six months being inappropriately fed follow-on milk. Fourteen per cent. of parents say that they have given babies under six months of age follow-on formula, which is dangerous and can cause serious infections.

It is for those reasons that the Minister recently received an open letter from the relevant royal colleges describing “serious shortcomings” in her proposed approach. I believe that her own scientific advice, from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, and advice from local authorities, which are responsible for upholding and enforcing the law through trading standards, is calling for stronger and more straightforward measures. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to go further than the regulations currently propose and implement in full the WHO code.

I gather that the trade body representing some of the manufacturers and distributors has sought to challenge the new regulations by way of a judicial review application. I believe that I am right in saying that the introduction of the proposed regulations has been suspended. Naturally, we cannot discuss the court case, because the matter is sub judice, but does the Minister accept that this new development would give her time to consider the arguments that I and many others are putting forward for an altogether more robust change in the law? Furthermore, will she agree to meet me and representatives of the Breastfeeding Manifesto Coalition to discuss the case for a tougher approach?

It is trite for politicians to claim that it is the measure of a society’s compassion, reasonableness or good sense that it treats one particular group of society better; Winston Churchill said that the measure of our society is how we treat prisoners, for example. However, there is no stronger test of a Government’s mettle than how we as a society take care of the well-being of our children—youngsters who, because of their age and lack of maturity, are unable to speak up for themselves and defend their own interests. They are the people we need to invest in as tomorrow’s generation of decision makers, wealth creators, upholders of the law and so on. It is, therefore, a good test of the Government’s resolve that we do all we can to ensure that children are safe and protected at the most vulnerable time of their lives, when they have just been born and are gaining weight and the knowledge and health that will secure their development throughout their childhood and probably influence the whole of their lives.

I hope that those points are well made to the Minister, and I look forward to hearing her response to them.

. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this important debate, thus giving me an opportunity to clarify the Government’s position and explain why I do not agree with the points that he made about a lack of resolve on the Government’s part? I absolutely congratulate him on his fantastic work in Parliament as a champion of the breastfeeding manifesto coalition, and I concur entirely with the points that he made about the importance of supporting, encouraging, protecting and promoting breastfeeding, in the interests of giving all infants the very best start in life. I will not go over the many eloquent points that he made about the important contribution that that makes to children’s development.

My hon. Friend acknowledged that not all mothers choose to, or are able to, breastfeed and that it is vital both that bottle-fed babies are protected and that mothers are in the best possible position to make informed decisions about feeding choices for their babies. The Government are developing an agenda on two fronts. Our central policy is to encourage, promote, protect and support breastfeeding mothers. We want to ensure that mothers who choose not to breastfeed or who cannot do so, receive the best advice so they can choose what is best for their babies without other people interfering in those decisions or causing confusion. For those reasons, we have placed stricter controls on the promotion, labelling and composition of infant and follow-on formula.

The main points made by my hon. Friend and the coalition concerned follow-on formula, and I concur entirely, because parents tell us that the available information is confusing. We recognise that advertisements for follow-on and infant formula may provide confusing advice about what is appropriate for infants and can be misinterpreted by parents. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has been very active in this campaign, touched on that point. Let me make the position absolutely clear: the Government are determined to take tough action to stamp out those practices and to prevent marketing activity that directly or indirectly undermines breastfeeding. We are acting on evidence suggesting that consumers in the UK cannot clearly differentiate between infant and follow-on formula when purchasing those products.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, maternal and infant support groups have brought the issue to our attention. I have had many meetings with different organisations about press and TV adverts on follow-on formula which, they believe, undermine breastfeeding. In the guidance issued alongside the regulations, we have explicitly taken up every example that was put to us and said, “This is not acceptable, and action will be taken.” There have been complaints about the industry seeking to bypass restrictions on the direct advertising of infant formula by the way in which it labels infant and follow-on formula, and advertising follow-on formula in such a way that it is difficult to distinguish between the two. I absolutely agree. On that basis, following extensive consultation with stakeholders, I have agreed a package of measures that will strengthen controls in this area. The package is made up of effective, proportionate and evidence-based controls, and I am confident it will improve consumer protection and give us a robust system that can withstand challenges, should they be made.

I gave a further commitment, after looking at everything that I received in representations about advertising, to provide guidance. That guidance is now operational, and it shows how the regulations should be interpreted. I have made a commitment, too, to provide an independently chaired review of the new controls after their first year of operation. As I made absolutely clear to the relevant organisations in our private meetings, the review will play an important role in policy making and in assessing whether the new controls work as expected. It will assess whether people have found new ways of getting around the rules or whether they are simply not complying with the rules. If the new arrangements are found not to be working, because they have been circumvented or because new methods emerge, the Government will respond proportionately and take the next step of considering further legislative action. We have therefore put robust measures in place.

I accept my right hon. Friend’s determination that the combination of regulations and guidance should present a tough position, but I would prefer more emphasis on the regulations and less on the guidance. I have seen the first draft of the Food Standards Agency’s suggestions for the review, and they seemed to be limited to the issue of whether the new position will reduce confusion between formula and follow-on. That remit seems far too narrow. Will the final review be every bit as broad as the Minister has just described?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the review will be every bit as broad as I have suggested. I am sure that he will recognise, both from his parliamentary experience and from the work that he did before he was elected, that Governments must always proceed in a proportionate way. Stepping outside that process can bring other complications that slow down progress.

I am convinced that, with the new regulations, we have put in place a response that is proportionate and will deliver the objectives which were eloquently described by my hon. Friend and with which I agree. I am determined to work with the industry and non-governmental organisations to ensure that that is the outcome, given the need for clear imperatives that he set out. We all want—it seems like a no-brainer—the best advice on providing a healthy start for our newborn babies and children in the earliest months and years of their lives, and I am determined to ensure that we provide that advice.

We support the international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes, and the subsequent amendments made by the World Health Assembly resolutions. My hon. Friend knows that the code makes a broad set of recommendations on labelling, the functioning of health care systems and the corporate responsibility of formula companies, and I can assure him that I am taking all those matters forward. The directive provides increased consumer protection in comparison with previous legislation, but we must ensure that it works, and I shall do so.

My hon. Friend touched on the Department’s present and planned initiatives further to improve breastfeeding rates across England. I have met and corresponded with the relevant non-governmental organisations. Clearly, I would like to be where they are and not where I am, but I am where I am. I have an opportunity to do what I can, and I am doing it as fast as I can. I am trying to deliver all our objectives in a reasonable way, but I am happy to meet them and others to take that work forward. My hon. Friend will be aware that a High Court order has been made, and that there has been a disagreement over the timetable for the provisions to come into force in England and Wales. The order has been suspended until a hearing of the substantive application for judicial review, which is due to take place at the end of February. I am disappointed about that: we will fight the case, because the Government’s priority is to ensure that infant and follow-on formula are clearly labelled, so that parents and carers who wish to use those products do so correctly. I am more than happy to continue my meetings with my hon. Friend and others when I know the outcome of the case to discuss the review and the future of the regulations.