Mr. Chris Macey:

I work in a health charity. I am not involved deeply and directly in this area. I will say that the UK Government has looked at it. Henry Dimbleby compiled a report. They were confident that taxation of sugar similar to the level of the sugar-sweetened drinks tax, a 10% to 25% increase depending on various factors, would work. It would incentivise the industry to reformulate. That is the key. If it does not incentive the industry to reformulate, it becomes a revenue raiser. The Deputy is right. We have to make sure it is something that is going to work. The view across the water is that it will certainly have the same impact as the sugar-sweetened tax. When talking about products, prices and industry profits, the other great thing about this type of mandatory action is that it creates a level playing field.

If there is a voluntary approach, only the good guys, if you like, are going to go down that road and others will stay in to maximise profit. This form of mandatory incentivised taxation will work because it is all about the bottom line for companies, at the end of the day, and about the competition. Once the tax was announced, industry went straight in. Businesses did not argue about it coming in but immediately started to reformulate and ensure they were ahead of the curve as much as possible. The result was that in the first year of the tax, their sales increased. They shifted to lower and no-tax products and their sales increased by 10%. While there has been some drift on that since then, the research clearly shows there is not going to be any long-term negative impact on any of them. I do not see why it would be any different for other foodstuffs compared with sugary drinks.