Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to extend
the use of health taxes in the wider fiscal system.
(Con)
My Lords, given both the historically high tax burden and the
cost of living pressures facing families, the Government have no
current plans to extend the use of health taxes. Nevertheless,
having a fit and healthy population is essential for a thriving
economy and we remain committed to doing everything we can to
help people live healthier lives, including by investing in
sports and nutrition education to give children the very best
start.
(Lab)
My Lords, as you would expect, I am rather disappointed with that
reply, although it is not unexpected. I hope the Government are
prepared to review their position on this. In 30 years, we have
had 14 different strategies on health, yet we now have more
obesity, more diabetes and more health problems related to
overeating and overdrinking. The two factors that have had the
biggest impact on behavioural change are, first, on smoking, the
increase in price introduced by my party, which the Tories
opposed. That was the biggest factor that changed attitudes.
Secondly, I commend the Government for their work on the special
levy on soft drinks introduced in 2019. There are rumours that it
is to be abandoned, so will the Minister confirm that they will
not abandon it? As it takes time to work these issues through,
would he agree to meet with Imperial College to look at the work
that has been done on taxation and how it can be brought into
being without increasing the cost of living greatly?
(Con)
There were a number of questions there. Tackling obesity is a
major priority for this Government and we are taking up a mixture
of issues. We continue to invest in supporting public health and
tackling obesity. This includes a £200 million a year programme
to continue the holidays, activities and food programme. To come
back to the noble Lord’s points, the soft drinks levy has had an
effect. Some 44% of drinks now have a reduced sugar level and
that is feeding through to 36,000 individuals being less likely
to become obese.
(CB)
May I begin by drawing the Government’s attention to the food
strategy published by President Biden about 10 days ago? It is a
brilliant document which will, I hope, be enacted into law.
Yesterday morning, on the “Today” show, at exactly 7.55 am,
Thérèse Coffey said, in response to a question on why the
Government are withdrawing restrictions on two for one offers at
supermarkets because of the cost of living crisis, “We have a
more positive approach to obesity than two for one”. Could the
Minister explain what that is?
(Con)
As I said, there are a number of initiatives to tackle obesity.
Of course, I am aware of three for two or two for one offers. As
we know, restrictions on these were due to come into force on 1
October 2022 and there are some extremely good reasons why they
have been delayed.
(Con)
Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is my
noble friend aware of the independent Khan review into smoking,
commissioned by and published in June? It
recommended a polluter pays levy on tobacco companies to fund the
policies necessary to enable the Government to hit their own
target of a smoke-free Britain by 2030. Can my noble friend
assure me that the Treasury is giving serious consideration to
that recommendation?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend. His question allows me to bring in an
answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, as
well. Over the past decade, the Government have made significant
steps towards making England smoke free by 2030. We have
continued to provide funding to local authorities and
stop-smoking services via the public health grant. We have also
provided additional resources as part of the NHS long-term plan.
To answer my noble friend’s question, the Government are
carefully considering the recommendation set out in the
independent Khan review.
(Lab)
Is the Minister aware that in the decade following 2010 life
expectancy in the UK stalled for the first time in 120 years?
When does he expect people to be able to start living a bit
longer?
(Con)
It is a continuing initiative and a continuing battle to fight
obesity. It is a really important issue and a cross-government
initiative. I mentioned already the holiday, activities and food
programme, but also bring in education, as this is also a matter
of educating parents. All in all, we need to continue to do our
very best to lower levels of obesity not just in adults but
particularly in children.
(Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the 40 million people
in this country who are obese and overweight put fewer calories
into their mouths, the NHS would save £27 billion? Could the
Department of Health have a slogan: “Slim your waist and slim
your wallet: put fewer calories into your mouth”?
(Con)
My Lords, I am very aware that the latest estimate of the annual
cost to the NHS in the UK of obesity-related ill health is around
£6.5 billion—that is the 2021 figure. I add that physical
activity and a healthy diet both have important roles to play in
supporting people to improve and maintain healthy lifestyles.
However, for those who are overweight or obese, eating and
drinking less is one of the most important factors.
(Lab)
My Lords—
(LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The Treasury said
last week that it will not be changing or reviewing the
three-year public spending settlement. However, last Friday, the
NHS chief finance officer said that that will result in a further
£20 billion of efficiency savings as a result of the increased
costs that the NHS is having to pay following inflation, and
two-thirds of the new integrated commissioning services started
by this Government on 1 July are already in deficit because of
inflation. How will the NHS will cope with pressures on top of
the existing pressures it has with the backlog of cases?
(Con)
The Government are very much aware of the pressures that the NHS
is facing. I think we will have to wait until 31 October for the
fiscal plan to understand exactly how expenditure will work out
in line with the OBR forecast and in line with how we intend to
roll out our growth programme. However, I reassure the noble
Baroness that the NHS is vital; there are a lot of pressures and
issues to tackle.
(Lab)
My apologies to the noble Baroness. Following on from her
question, is the problem still that the Treasury, when measuring
the cost-efficiency of sensible policies such as the tax on
sugar, does not offset expenditure in one department against
gains made in another—in this case the Department of Health and
the NHS? Can the noble Viscount tell the House whether that is
still the Treasury’s practice?
(Con)
I am unable to confirm that. However, I can confirm—I think this
is common knowledge—that a review on efficiency is under way and,
as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we will have to
wait a couple of weeks or so to see how this will pan out.
(Con)
Does my noble friend share my concern that many people in the NHS
do not keep their appointments? Has the NHS considered having an
appointment fee, which of course could be repayable if the
appointment was kept?
(Con)
I feel certain that that has been considered but I am afraid I am
none the wiser as to whether it might be taken forward. Again, I
will write to my noble friend if I have any update on that
initiative.
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I have been listening very carefully to the Minister’s
answers. I wonder whether he recalls the question from the noble
Baroness, Lady Boycott. In his answer he referred to “extremely
good reasons” for the delay to the implementation of the previous
arrangements about buy one, get one free. Can he tell us what
those extremely good reasons are? I hoped he would have done so
by now.
(Con)
That is a fair point from the noble Baroness. How long does she
have? But if I may answer that very briefly, obviously, we are
aware of the pressures that people are under, particularly those
in the lower economic groups, so we felt it was right to effect a
delay for a year.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government can send messages
out to food manufacturers? They warn us of the dire consequences
of increasing prices but, if they are told that there is going to
be a tax, they often find ways of avoiding it and lowering the
calorific content of some of these foods.
(Con)
That is right. It is why the Government continue to work with
industry to help deliver healthier foods and to encourage
healthier eating. We want to ensure that we have a system in
place to deliver healthy and affordable food for all, which also
takes account of our great agricultural sector.
