Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 48, to delete lines 3 to 35, to delete pages 49, 50, 51 and in page 52 to delete lines 1 to 27.

We might take a little bit longer to discuss this amendment although I do not suggest it will take a very long time. Effectively, our amendment would delete the so-called sugar tax from the budget. We are against the sugar tax and I have not been convinced by the arguments that have been put forward in its favour. I should qualify that by saying that in no way are we defenders of the soft drinks industry or the sugar industry nor do we underestimate or understate the negative impact of soft drinks on health in terms of problems of obesity and diabetes. Those are very real problems and I discourage people from drinking soft drinks at all or if possible at least to minimise their consumption. I do not believe a sugar tax is the answer.

Another amendment which has been ruled out of order sought to have a report carried out to assess the situation but evidence already exists from other jurisdictions. For example, in a number of American states, for example, in Philadelphia, it was shown that the impact of a sugar tax was regressive in that it would affect people on low incomes and people of colour the hardest, significantly harder as a percentage of their income than higher income earners. We are against regressive taxation. One could dress up water charges as a green tax or other measures as health charges but fundamentally they amount to regressive taxation and in this case puts the burden onto the consumer of those drinks, which we are against. The tax will act in a regressive manner to shift wealth disproportionately away from lower income groups.

If the Minister could convince me that the measure would have a massively transformative impact over the other measures that could be taken I would be happy to debate the issue but I do not believe it would have the impact other measures would have. The kind of measures I favour in terms of dealing with health crises, including those caused by sugar, include regulation, policy and measures relating to ownership and taxation but on the companies that produce the drinks rather than taxes that are simply paid by the consumer. If the Government is serious about an approach in terms of a healthy lifestyle then let us have a carrot approach and a serious approach to increasing the amount of physical education in primary schools, which is on average one hour a week. A study by UCD pointed out that for girls it is an average of 46 minutes a week but in reality that amounts to very little when the before and after bits are taken out. Let us contrast that with religion, regardless of ethos, where it is two and a half hours a week. We are the third lowest among 37 European states for time spent on physical exercise in primary schools. If the Minister is serious about young people being healthy then he will significantly increase the amount of time spent on physical education in the school curriculum. He would also build a real national health service which includes free visits all the way through people's lives to dentists and doctors, which would allow them to have a relationship with those health professionals and instead of this country being a low spender on health promotion we would become a high spender. Those things would have much more of a radical impact in terms of people's lives and as part of an education and health promotion campaign could dramatically reduce people's consumption of high sugar soft drinks.

In addition, I favour regulation such as the measures relating to alcohol that are very controversial. We support the ban on alcohol advertisements for anything to do with sport and the same approach should apply to soft drinks. It should not be allowed to promote drinks that are full of sugar which have a very thin veneer of connection to sport. We should regulate that out of existence. Similarly, we should regulate the existence of vending machines for soft drinks cans in places where young people congregate, which I think still includes some schools, community centres, swimming pools and other such venues whereby people are able to access such drinks if they want but if they are not pushed in the way they currently are it would have more of an impact.

I am in favour of taxing corporations. Let us have an extra tax on the profits of those corporations which are primarily involved in the production of junk food and junk drinks.

The same applies in terms of regulation of advertising of soft drinks and junk foods.

I will make another point quickly. I agree it is not the same and I am not trying to suggest it is the same. I accept that all the scientific studies required have not yet been done. However, we should not suggest that the alternatives to full-sugar soft drinks, including drinks with saccharine and all the other additives, are not without complications. A number of studies indicate the complications of artificial sweeteners. They have the same effect of getting people used to sweet tastes and, therefore, they can make people consume more sugar elsewhere in their lives and diets. This is not the answer to a problem. It causes problems and is a regressive measure.

See this speech in context