Wednesday 13th January 2016

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ribeiro Portrait Lord Ribeiro (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords—

None Portrait Noble Lords
- Hansard -

Cross Benches!

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Prior of Brampton Portrait Lord Prior of Brampton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Government have taken into account a range of evidence from Public Health England, the McKinsey institute, the SACN and others in coming to their strategy. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the response will need to take into account issues such as reformulation, portion size, availability and a whole range of other issues that affect sugar intake.

Lord Ribeiro Portrait Lord Ribeiro
- Hansard - -

My Lords, while the sugar tax for fizzy drinks is a regressive tax, the very people it would target stand to benefit from such a tax because, leaving aside obesity, which is a long-term problem, dental caries are a short-term problem. There is no doubt that sugary drinks are causing a massive amount of dental caries, the cost of which falls on the NHS, as these unfortunate children have to have dental extractions which will affect their well-being and quality of life for years to come.

Lord Prior of Brampton Portrait Lord Prior of Brampton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, reduction of sugar is a critical part of the Government’s obesity strategy. It has been made clear by the reports of Public Health England, the McKinsey institute and others that there is no silver bullet. It is not just a question of passing a tax and getting the results that you wish to have. If a tax were to come in, it would be part of a whole range of other measures.