Simon Hamilton
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I have emphasised to the Member and the House before, that, whilst I accept that those are not good enough — that is why we have been developing the plan — there are alternative technologies in place that can present opportunities for those who just cannot get acceptable speeds.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. There are some initiatives that I believe will help and act as a driver to improve broadband access. One such intervention is the broadband universal service obligation (USO), which is being taken forward by Her Majesty's Government.”
“I thank the Member for his question. However, he is conflating two issues. I wrote to his party leader, and indeed to all Assembly party leaders, before making the announcement that I did last week about wanting to publish the details of the businesses in receipt of the non-domestic RHI scheme. It was my intention to do that tomorrow.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chancellor, in his autumn statement, made some more funding available for telecommunications, and my Department is studying that and seeking to avail itself of that to the fullest possible extent.”
“In addition, my Department is managing a contract for the delivery of the superfast rollout programme, which, by 31 December, will provide access to superfast broadband with speeds of at least 24 megabits per second to a further 38,000 premises, both business and residential, across Northern Ireland, including in the Newry and Armagh cons…”
“I signalled the intention to do this a few weeks ago. The Member and the House will know that inspections of all installations would have taken place over the 20-year lifetime of the RHI scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,625 lines we hold for Simon Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 73.
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 simply tidies up clause 21 to ensure that the condition applies in the same way to these new cases as it does when the nominated person objects where there are one or more treatments other than the treatment in question. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 are consequential to amendment No 1. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment Nos 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 22 and 23, all of which follow on from the retention of the enduring power of attorney system. That system had been earmarked for abolition to be replaced by the new lasting power of attorney system provided for in Part 5 of the Bill.”
“Amendment Nos 2 to 23. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, as you highlighted, most of the amendments in this group are consequential to the amendments made at Consideration Stage. Amendment No 1 is the first of three amendments required on foot of the Committee amendments to clauses 21 and 22. Members will recall that the effect of the Committee's amendments was to extend the application of the prevention of serious harm condition so that it will now also apply in prescribed cases where the person concerned resists treatment with serious consequences or is subject to an additional measure as defined in clause 23. It already applied where the nominated person objects to treatment with serious consequences and, for completeness, in all deprivation of liberty cases.”
“Like other Members, I seek to be brief. I thank those who contributed to the debate, particularly those who spoke in support of the amendments. <BR /> <BR />To reiterate the point, I am proud — and everybody here should be proud — of our organ donation system in Northern Ireland. It is one that is without doubt the best in Europe and amongst the best in the world for live donor rates. As I indicated previously, my main reason for proposing the amendments is to strengthen the Bill and remove any potential ambiguity from the clauses as drafted. The language provided by my amendments is now clear and easily understood. With that said, I ask Members to support the amendments in this group.”
“As I have already stated, my amendments will simplify this by referring to "transplantation" and removing any references to "transplantation activities". <BR /> <BR />I trust that Members will understand that the amendments are an attempt to provide greater clarity to the clauses in the Bill, and I ask them to support all of the amendments in this group.”
“In relation to the duty to report on transplantation, I have proposed amendment Nos 11, 12, 13 and 14, which, again, are technical amendments and will remove the term "transplantation activities" from the Bill and replace it with "transplantation". I understand that the term "transplantation activities" was a fairly technical term used in Mrs Dobson's Human Transplantation Bill but not reflected in the amendments to the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to cover the range of activities to which that Bill would have applied. In my view, the term "transplantation activities" is unnecessarily wide and the definition too complicated for the purposes of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which deals only with promotion and reporting.”
“Amendment No 9 is a purely technical amendment to correct an inaccurate reference to clause 15(1)(a), in light of the fact that the information campaign would fall under subsection (1)(b). However, as the provision could properly apply to the whole of subsection (1), my amendment will leave out "subsection (1)(a)" and replace this with "subsection (1)". <BR /> <BR />During Consideration Stage, the Assembly agreed an amendment tabled by Sinn Féin Members that places a duty on the Department to promote and produce an annual report on transplantation. I have proposed amendment No 10, which will simply clarify the fact that, if the proposed report is to fully cover activities in a year, it can only be finalised after the year has ended. My amendment, therefore, proposes that clause 16(1) should read:”
“<BR /> <BR />Much valuable work to promote organ donation is undertaken all year round by the health sector, led by the Public Health Agency and involving charities and local support groups across Northern Ireland. This is important work that deserves our support. I also give thanks to the media, regional and local, which have carried many news stories and features encouraging organ donation. <BR /> <BR />At Consideration Stage, Mr Alastair Ross enquired as to the possible inclusion of language around organ donation. He made a valid point, as promotion carried out by the Department would, indeed, be in relation to the act of donation rather than transplantation itself. However, rather than redraft the entire clause, amendment No 8 simply adds words to the effect that the end of clause 15(1)(b) will now read:”
“Furthermore, in the last 21 years, more than 55,000 people in the United Kingdom have received an organ transplant, thanks to someone donating when they died. In addition, 21 million people across the United Kingdom have registered to help others. It is worth putting it on record that those are remarkable achievements, and Northern Ireland can be extremely proud of the part that it has played in the success of the organ donor register. I also remind Members that, over the past five years in Northern Ireland, there has been a 500% increase in living kidney donors, with 55 people donating in 2014-15. That is twice the number, measured per million of population, of any other region in the United Kingdom and is higher than in any European country.”
“Two new clauses were introduced at Consideration Stage. Clause 15 introduces a requirement on the Department to promote and provide information on transplantation, and clause 16 places a duty on the Department to produce an annual report on transplantation. I believe that we had a useful and largely informed debate about transplantation at Consideration Stage, and I have consistently made it clear that I want to see many more of our fellow citizens who need an organ to improve their health and, indeed, in many cases, save their life, receive that organ at the earliest opportunity.”
“<BR /> <BR />With those things said, I ask that Members support the amendments before them.”
“That is why I think we need to take our time with this study, and then we can consult on specifics and specific proposals thereafter. <BR /> <BR />I reiterate the need to extend the period from one year to two years, as I believe that will allow for a more comprehensive and meaningful end product that will help to inform further debate about how we should move forward on this important issue. It is a complex issue, and there is much that is unclear about it. I make the point to Members that, although the amendment would mean that it has to take place within two years, that does not mean that it could not be concluded inside those two years. We do not have to wait until the end of two years to get something done. It could be done in a much shorter time, if possible.”
“I think you need to do a study, and it needs to reflect on the views of the public on whether there is support for such a thing, as Mr McKinney said. I think we need to be mindful of that. Any study worth its — I was going to say "salt", but, of course, too much salt is not a good thing either, and it would only encourage people to think about an amendment on that as well. Any study should consider what the public's view is and whether there would be public acceptance of the introduction of such a levy or tax. I think a consultation signals a clear intent to do something, and I do not think we are quite there yet. Whilst there is an acceptance that there is a problem here, I think there are issues underneath the problem that we are not quite clear and sure about.”
“<BR /> <BR />We focused here on one particular issue — the contribution of sugar to the issues around obesity — but there are others, such as other types of food, lack of exercise or whatever it might be. It is absolutely right that we examine all those further, and that is what the Making Life Better strategy is about. I am sure there will be other contributions to that debate over the years to come. It is taking the time to examine the issue properly that is the intention of the study, which is at the heart of the amendments before us. If the results of that are positive, my Department or the Assembly could then move towards a consultation on what specifically to do on a levy or tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. <BR /> <BR />In my view, doing a consultation first is the wrong way round. It is putting the cart somewhat before the horse.”
“I again thank the Members who contributed. I particularly thank those who support the amendments brought forward in my name. My reasons for proposing the amendments were, I think, articulated clearly. They will allow a piece of work to be undertaken that should provide us with useful information about how to proceed on a sugar-sweetened drinks levy. I share the public health concerns raised by many Members across the House, and I understand and accept the point made by Sinn Féin about seeking a broader strategy on this. I could argue that a broader strategy is in place with Making Life Better, a public health strategy that the Department has in place. In fact, an Executive subcommittee on public health met last week to discuss this important issue and the substantial progress being made on implementing the strategy.”
“<BR /> <BR />I trust that Members will understand the rationale for proposing the amendments and will appreciate that, from a practical perspective, they are reasonable in terms of what the Department will undertake to do and the timescale in which it would be done. Therefore, I ask Members to support the amendments.”
“That takes into account the complexity of the issues and gives the Department more time to commission appropriate studies and advice and consider them before reporting on a study. On top of the econometric modelling, we need to agree on the definition of a sugar-sweetened drink. It will take time to consider that, and we may need to commission expert advice and research that could take some time to complete. I believe this to be a reasonable time frame and hope that Members will understand and support the rationale for proposing the amendment. <BR /> <BR />As a result of the amendment about the provision for a study on a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks, the scope of the Bill has further changed, and amendment No 16 will reflect that change in the long title.”
“It is vital that, to comply with European Union trade and human rights legislation, the level at which any potential tax would be set needs to be proportionate and effective. I note with interest the recent report by Cancer Research UK and the UK Health Forum that estimated that a 20% tax on sugar-sweetened drinks could reduce calorie intake by just 15 calories a day. That is, at most, 0·7% of the recommended daily calorie intake and seems to me to be unlikely to make any real difference. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 will remove subsections (3) and (4) from clause 8 as they contain the details of the consultation, which would, of course, be redundant if there was no such consultation. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 will extend the period within which the work must be carried out to two years after enactment.”
“However, in spite of my putting forward such a good argument, the Assembly agreed that the clause proposed by Sinn Féin Members should be inserted into the Bill, and it now appears as clause 8. <BR /> <BR />I have proposed a number of amendments to the clause. Amendment Nos 4 and 6 remove the duty to consult and replace it with the duty to carry out a study. That gives the Department time to commission a robust study of the impact of such a tax. That will also be open to a public discussion and will allow us to try to resolve the potential legal challenges. If the outcome of that is positive, the Department can move forward on a consultation. However, if it is not possible, there will be no compulsion on the Department to undertake what could well be further nugatory work.”
“I opposed it not out of opposition to the idea itself but for other reasons, including uncertainty over the Assembly's ultimate competence to legislate in the area, which is an uncertainty that remains based on recent advice; whether, as a principle, we should legislate to compel Departments to carry out a consultation; a lack of consensus on the issue, with even dieticians from the British Dietetic Association urging caution that we should not become fixated on a tax or single out sugar, when a balanced diet is key; the fact that we need to do more to educate people on sugar before moving to legislate; the lack of any evidence base that shows impact on health outcomes and not just on purchasing behaviour, which means, simply put, that people may switch to other unhealthy food and therefore we just displace the problem rather than resolving it; the fact that such a tax could well be regressive and could exacerbate food poverty; and, finally, the unknown impact on business, jobs and cross-border trade.”
“Even more worryingly, 28% of our children and young people, some as young as two years of age, are overweight or obese. <BR /> <BR />At Consideration Stage, I outlined my opposition to the new clause that was proposed by Sinn Féin Members, which would have required the Department to consult on a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks within a year of enactment.”
“We had a very useful debate on this subject at Consideration Stage, and I do not think that anyone would deny that poor diet is very much linked to the prevalence of many medical conditions in our society such as stroke, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer. We are also well aware of the health risks associated with sustained high levels of sugar intake. That is particularly disturbing when we consider that current estimates of sugar intake in Northern Ireland show that the average intake amongst school-age children and teenagers is almost three times higher than the new 5% maximum recommended level and around twice the maximum recommended level in adults. Sixty per cent of the adult population is overweight or obese.”
“I ask Members to support the amendments in the group.”
“I thank those who contributed to the debate, in particular those — I think all — who accepted the rationale behind the amendments and supported them. The Assembly's view on this issue was very clear; it supported the Sinn Féin amendments around the subject. The Committee previously supported the text of what is now amendment No 1. The intention of that amendment and other amendments in the group are to tighten up and tidy up, as another Member said, previous amendments and to make this new law more robust. <BR /> <BR />As I indicated previously, my reason for proposing the amendments is to send out a strong and unequivocal message that the best way to provide children in Northern Ireland with effective protection from passive smoking in cars is to prevent them from having to inhale smoke in the first place.”
“I trust that Members will appreciate my rationale for making these amendments and understand that they are designed to send out a clear message that I am serious about tackling smoking and the danger that second-hand smoke exposure poses to children. I believe that these amendments will strengthen the Bill, and I ask Members to give them their support.”
“I, therefore, proposed amendment No 2, which is a technical amendment that will require the Department to publish a review three years after commencement of that clause, rather than the commencement of the Act. That will enable my Department to commence the clause when it is ready to make regulations under Part 1, thus making a review more meaningful. <BR /> <BR />I have also proposed amendment No 3, which is a small technical amendment to clause 6. It will clarify that regulations setting out the terms of the review will be made by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. <BR /> <BR />Finally, as a result of the amendments on banning smoking in cars when children are present, the scope of the Bill has changed slightly, and amendment No 15 makes the necessary change to the long title.”
“A definition of "enforcement authority" will be included in the regulations that will emanate from the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I also assure Members that, as there has been no public consultation on this subject in Northern Ireland, it is my intention to carry out a full consultation on the regulations. Furthermore, given that the amendment agreed by the Assembly at Consideration Stage allowed for regulations to be made on the use of nicotine products in private vehicles carrying children, I reassure Members that my proposed amendment includes a similar power. The new clause 6 requires my Department to review the implementation of Part 1 three years after commencement of the Act. Given that the Act requires a phased commencement, there will be no definite starting date for that clause.”
“In order to allow the Department time in which to consider fully the enforcement issues, the amendment is drafted in such a way as to provide naming the particular enforcement body or bodies in the primary legislation and refers instead to the "enforcement authority". <BR /> <BR />Dependent on a successful outcome to discussions with the Department of Justice, it is envisaged that a dual enforcement approach between councils and the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be introduced. The dual enforcement approach will be similar to that already adopted in England and Wales, where a ban has been in place since October 2015. In practice, that would mean that a fixed penalty notice could be issued by the Police Service of Northern Ireland or a council.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 seeks to remove clause 5, as the intention is to replace it with a clause that will amend article 6 of the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 in relation to smoke-free vehicles to allow offences to apply to private vehicles where under-18s are present. The offences are similar to those that exist for work vehicles under the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and relate to smoking in a smoke-free vehicle and failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free vehicle. My amendment will also allow for the application of fixed penalties for the offences to which I just referred.”
“I am on record as saying that the case for banning smoking in cars when children are present is clear. We are all well aware that children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke. At Consideration Stage, an amendment tabled by Sinn Féin Members included a provision for regulations to be made to ban the use of nicotine products in cars carrying children. That amendment was subsequently agreed by the Assembly. Whilst I was prepared to support that amendment and did, I indicated that I might seek to tighten it. Having given the matter careful consideration, I have proposed an amendment that received support from the Health Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although I have decided to support the amendment, my Department will seek to bring forward a technical amendment at Further Consideration Stage on the operation of the annual reporting cycle to clarify that, if the proposed report is to cover activities in a year fully, it can be finalised only after the year has ended. That having been said, I support all the amendments in the group.”
“It also proposes that, every five years, the Department should report its opinion as to whether the proposed provisions have been effective in promoting transplantation activities and any recommendations that the Department considers appropriate for amending the law so as to promote transplantation activities. <BR /> <BR />The proposed five-year interval for examining the need for any new legislation is, in my view, a responsible and sensible proposition. It is responsible because it should provide the clinicians with the space to get on with their job without any further short-term distractions of legislative proposals for soft opt-out or deemed consent. It is sensible because it would provide the Assembly with sufficient time to assess and reflect on the impact of the soft opt-out system introduced in Wales last year.”
“Furthermore, the very same clinicians that I mentioned earlier have encouraged us all publicly to enhance our efforts to educate the public about organ donation and, in so doing, raise societal awareness of the subject to a new level. I therefore support amendment No 6. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 broadly mirrors the amendment to clause 14 of the Human Transplantation Bill, which was also recommended by the Committee in its report. The amendment proposes placing a duty on my Department to report annually on organ transplantation and awareness activities.”
“When that sort of evidence comes forward, it affirms the views of many in the House, and I am glad that it convinced others to change their mind as well. Caution, as we were urged to take, was the right thing to do in the circumstances. <BR /> <BR />To return to the amendment, it proposes placing a duty on my Department to promote organ transplantation in a campaign informing the public at least once a year. Although my Department believes that our record on promoting the organ donor register speaks for itself in raising awareness, I have decided to support the amendment, especially given that it has emerged from an informed and comprehensive review of the matter by the Committee.”
“I have made it crystal clear that I will always be guided by the scientific evidence and that I will listen to our clinicians. In circumstances in which virtually every transplant surgeon, nephrologist and intensive care consultant expressed deep concern that the original private Member's Bill could damage our world-leading organ donation system, we were all wise to sit up and listen. <BR /> <BR />I listened to comments from some Members, including those of the previous Member to speak, who suggested that decisions were taken on the basis of party politics. To suggest that is completely and utterly inaccurate. I stress again that transplant surgeons, nephrologists, intensive care consultants, with one voice, urged caution and expressed their worry that the Bill would damage our system and possibly deter people from donating organs.”
“Doing damage to our organ donation system was a genuine fear, and Dr John Trinder, a consultant in intensive care medicine who gave evidence to the Committee during its deliberations, described the Bill as being "unhelpful and potentially harmful." <BR /> <BR />A one-time cheerleader for the Bill, Mr Joe Brolly, whom the Chair of the Committee referred to earlier, said that the Bill was "total gobbledygook" and "very confusing". When leading clinicians and organ donation advocates were freely expressing their concerns about the possible negative impact of deemed consent, the Committee was right to listen and to act as it did. <BR /> <BR />Since coming into this job, I have been pressed by many inside and outside this House to make my decisions as Minister of Health on the basis of the available scientific and medical evidence.”
“That travelling is nearly more stressful than the fact that they are waiting for a transplant. Therefore, anything that we can do on a cross-border basis is to be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />We tamper with a system that is amongst the best in the world at our absolute peril. That is the message of clinicians such as Tim Brown and Aisling Courtney. Aisling Courtney said to the media recently that the clinicians are:”
“<BR /> <BR />We do kidney transplantation here but we do not do other transplantation in Northern Ireland. Many people, including some I know very well, have had to travel to Great Britain to get their transplant. Many of them would say to you that they are very grateful for the service that they get, but, on many occasions, they have to travel and it is unsuccessful and then they have to return home. They have to make several journeys before they get a successful match and a transplant.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is notable that, in 2014, the Republic of Ireland reported a dip — it was more than a dip; it was a drop — of a quarter in their organ donation levels. They are experiencing a very different problem from us. We have seen an increase in our organ donations in recent years. We have a far superior live organ donor rate. I recall media reports earlier this year that their figure was much lower than ours in Northern Ireland. To answer the questions that have been raised, I understand that discussions have started between clinicians. It is something that I raised proactively at the recent North/South Ministerial Council meeting, and I am keen for officials to take forward and explore the opportunities that there might well be.”
“Cross-border organ donation opportunities was a point that I mentioned in my North/South Ministerial Council sectoral format statement last week. I think that there are opportunities to open up a cross-border Belfast/Dublin corridor for organ donation. When you talk to our clinicians at Belfast City Hospital, they will tell you about how there are two teams doing very similar work in two jurisdictions but who have not really spoken to each other properly, formally or consistently over 20, 30 or more years. Clearly, there are opportunities for them to learn from each other, as, indeed, there are opportunities to learn from teams around the world. However, there are particular opportunities to develop a service on a cross-border basis, which would be to the benefit of people on both sides of the border.”
“They are amongst the best in the world, if, indeed, not the best in the world, at what they do. We should be rightly proud of what they do. It is a team that has equalled the UK record for the number of transplants by one unit in one day. We should put on record again our thanks for everything that they do and our support for all the endeavours that they make. The fact that they are amongst the best in the world is a reason why we should listen to them when they speak. <BR /> <BR />The work undertaken by that team has seen live organ donation rates in Northern Ireland rise and rise to a level that is absolutely definitely the best in Europe and is one of the best in the world. That is amazing. We tamper with a system that is working well at our peril. <BR /> <BR />I will pick up on another point that a couple of Members spoke about.”
“<BR /> <BR />I noticed in some evidence sessions that the Member said that she had possession of various amendments that would have altered the Bill and perhaps made it more workable. She was at perfect liberty, if she had those amendments, to bring them forward at Consideration Stage when she brought the Bill back to the House. Perhaps she can explain why she did not do that if she was in possession of those amendments. <BR /> <BR />We have a system that is amongst the best in the world. I concur with what Mr McKinney said. The team is quite extraordinary. As I may have said at Second Stage, it is refreshing when you meet a team of clinicians in any field and they say to you quite openly — it is not something that we are very good at in this part of the world or that we are known for — that they want to be the best in the world.”
“I am happy to take that point now, but I will come to it in more detail later in my contribution. It became clear to me, as it became clear to others and, indeed, to the majority of the Committee that, when you have public evidence such as we had before the Committee during its deliberations and evidence sessions from clinicians saying that they were deeply concerned about the Bill as it was drafted and that any move to soft opt-out or deemed consent — whatever one might want to refer to it as — could damage our system, it was only right and proper not to move forward with any amendments and to take a different approach. Again, I commend the Committee and its members for taking the approach that they did.”
“I believe that the Committee was brave in doing what it did and should be commended for listening to the clear and unequivocal evidence that came from clinicians who work in the fields of intensive care and transplant surgery. I believe that the private Member's Bill was designed with the best of intentions but, in its drafting, it had the potential to damage our organ donation system; a system that is among the best in the world for live donor rates. <BR /> <BR />The work undertaken by the team at Belfast City Hospital was mentioned by Mr McKinney. I concur with his remarks entirely, and I am glad that he had the opportunity to visit the unit. I met clinicians and visited the same unit in the summer of 2015.”
“I note that amendment No 6, which appears in the names of Rosaleen McCorley, Daithí McKay and Maeve McLaughlin, mirrors the amendment to clause 1 of the Human Transplantation Bill recommended by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in its report on the Bill. Members will be aware that the Human Transplantation Bill, as has been mentioned during the debate, was withdrawn by the Bill's sponsor, Mrs Dobson, following the Committee's report. That report proposed significant amendment of the Human Transplantation Bill, given the almost unanimous views expressed by clinicians that the system of statutory soft opt-out from organ donation, as proposed by the Bill, would potentially undermine the significant achievements of our organ donor programme over the last 20 years.”
“I believe that a study, maybe one conducted by the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland, would, in the first instance, be a far better first step than committing to a consultation. If the proposers of the amendment agree not to move it today, I will discuss the possibility of beginning a study later this year with the PHA. I therefore think that the amendment should be rejected at this stage and that discussions on taxing sugar-sweetened drinks should be taken forward separately.”
“You determine that a sugar tax is a good idea and something that you want to introduce, and you then consult on the details and specifics of how any tax or levy might operate. <BR /> <BR />What is perhaps more appropriate at this point, in this set of circumstances where we are still at the very early stages of our thinking on this and understanding of the issue, is a study as opposed to a consultation. I have consistently said that I am open to debate and discussion on this issue. However, given the concerns that I have set out — there are probably others that I have not touched on or which have not been thought about yet — I do not think that this Bill is the most appropriate place to have this discussion.”
“I agree with him on that argument. At least for now, I agree that we need to seek to educate and inform people much better about the impact of sugary drinks and products. <BR /> <BR />As I predicted in advance, the proposers of the amendment, Ms McLaughlin and others, may well suggest that these are all issues that could be examined as part of their proposed consultation. I am not convinced that we should ever legislate for consultations. Notwithstanding that point, consultation is, in my belief, better suited to a scenario where you have a much clearer view about the ultimate direction of travel in which you want to go. In this case, that would be when we had determined that a sugar tax is a good idea. We have dealt with all the various questions that Ms McLaughlin raised in her intervention.”
“<BR /> <BR />An interesting point on this issue was made in a BBC 'Question Time' debate by the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Mr Farage. Why is it so obvious that Mr Farage would drink something like ginger beer? It is so quintessentially British. He said:”
“I am not sure that that is what is being called for in a consultation, and I will come to that in my concluding remarks. The point that I am making is that I do not think that this issue has had the degree of attention in the media or public discourse that, say, the public health impact of smoking or even the consumption of alcohol has had. I defy anybody in the House to say the contrary. I think that we need to be careful of moving ahead of that public debate and discourse. We have not had TV adverts or warnings on packaging that we have seen, say, with smoking or other public health campaigns. I do not think that people know how much sugar there is in various products and I am not sure that it is as widely known as the impact that smoking has on our health.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, on the argument for caution moving forward, I do not believe that this issue has yet to receive the attention that other public health issues have had over the years: for example, smoking, which we have been debating this evening. I do not believe that the impact that sugary drinks or sugary products have on health, and particularly obesity, have been properly discussed and debated in public in the way that other issues have.”