My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about how people live their lives in the foods and drinks they choose to consume and the way they look at their diet in general.
I would like to address a couple of criticisms raised by some. First, is this policy an example of the nanny state? I would argue that we use the tax system to influence behaviour and always have done. The Government have a duty of care to address important public health issues, as we do with tobacco and alcohol. As I said, freedom of choice is limited with regard to children, because they are not in a position to exercise freedom of choice. We live in a world that is skewed against our health interests; choice over healthy options can be difficult to come by as we are continually surrounded by unhealthy products. I would go so far as to suggest that some reduction of choice in sugary drinks on our shelves is a price worth paying to deal with the crisis that we face. I support the use of the tax system to support public health endeavours such as this one.
The second criticism is, “Is this just an extra tax, is it an attack on jobs, and is it regressive?” The tax can be avoided if products are reformulated or if existing sugar-free options are promoted. I would therefore argue that jobs in our food and drink sector should be safe. In fact, our food and drink sector can thrive if it can show the world how to tackle this agenda successfully. It is not a regressive measure either. The health gains are the biggest for those on low incomes, and sugar-free options are available which, we hope, will cost no more than they currently cost.
I support the soft drinks industry levy as a small but necessary part of the fight against childhood obesity.