Government's new health strategy ‘no more than hiding the crisps', Tories say
Under new proposals, retailers could be made to set targets to increase their sales of less fattening products.
Shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately said setting mandatory targets for supermarkets was 'nanny state'.
'They had 14 years in opposition to think about what they wanted to do about the NHS, they've had a year in government, and the number one thing in it seems to be hide the crisps,' she told Sky News' Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips.
Mr Streeting said the Government wants to 'nudge people in the right direction' (Lucy North/PA)
'It's obviously the nanny state, but it's also not what people want for the NHS.
'People want to hear how they're going to get to see their GP.
'Telling people what to buy, I think, is not up to government. I believe in personal responsibility.'
Health Secretary Wes Streeting told the same programme the Government will work with supermarkets to help 'nudge people in the right direction'.
'By taking the approach we're taking with supermarkets, they will decide through the combination of where they put their products, how they do price promotions, the reformulation, what products they choose to put on the shelves,' he said.
'They will work with us to make sure that we nudge people in the right direction without any of us even noticing, in the same way that we've nudged the country in the other direction since the 1990s.'
Rejecting suggestions that the idea was too controlling, he said it was different to 'traditional nanny statism, where we regulate more heavily on price, on marketing, on what's sold'.
Labour's 10-year health plan is set to be published next week.
Other changes could include money for hospitals being linked to patient ratings.
According to the Times, part of the proposals will see patients contacted a few weeks after their hospital treatment for feedback.
Based on their responses, money could be diverted to a local 'improvement fund'.
Another proposal could see NHS users awarded points for upping their step count and eating healthily.
Points can then be traded for vouchers, with discounts at supermarkets and coffee shops, according to The Sun.
Hundreds of bodies responsible for overseeing and running parts of the NHS in England are likely to be scrapped as part of the changes.
Mr Streeting has said the current system is too complex and needs reform.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
29 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
A Palestinian human rights group will discover on Monday whether it has won a legal challenge against the Government over decisions related to exports of military equipment to Israel amid the conflict in Gaza. Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision.
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision. Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed demonstrators before the hearing began (Ben Whitley/PA) At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision. Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.
