Sugar tax could be applied to milkshakes under Treasury proposals
The sugar tax applied to fizzy drinks could be extended to milkshakes and similar treats under government proposals.
Plans to end the exemption from the levy for dairy-based drinks, as well as non-dairy substitutes such as oats or rice, were put out for consultation on Monday.
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had said in her autumn budget last year that the government would consider broadening the tax to include such drinks.
The Treasury confirmed plans to press ahead with the changes on Monday, as well as a proposal to reduce the maximum amount of sugar allowed in drinks before they become subject to the levy from 5g to 4g per 100ml.
As a result of widespread reformulation after the initial announcement of the so-called soft drinks industry levy (SDIL), 89% of fizzy drinks sold in the UK do not pay the tax, the Treasury said.
An estimated 203 pre-packed milk-based drinks on the market, which make up 93% of sales within the category, will be hit with the tax unless their sugar content is reduced under the new proposals, according to government analysis.
The SDIL was introduced by the Conservatives in April 2018 as part of their anti-obesity drive. The exemption for milk-based drinks was included because of concerns about calcium consumption, particularly among children.
However, the Treasury said young people only get 3.5% of their calcium intake from such drinks, meaning 'it is also likely that the health benefits do not justify the harms from excess sugar'.
'By bringing milk-based drinks and milk substitute drinks into the SDIL, the government would introduce a tax incentive for manufacturers of these drinks to build on existing progress and further reduce sugar in their recipes,' it said.
The Institute for Economic Affairs, a rightwing free-market thinktank, expressed concerns about the cost to consumers of the proposed changes.
'The sugar tax has been such a dramatic failure that it should be repealed, not expanded,' said Christopher Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the institute.
'Sugar taxes have never worked anywhere. What happened to Starmer's promise to not raise taxes on working people?'
The government consultation on the plans will run from Monday until 21 July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves in stand-off over policing and council budgets days before spending review
Rachel Reeves has been locked in a standoff over the policing and council budgets just days before this week's spending review, which is set to give billions to the NHS, defence and technology. Yvette Cooper's Home Office and Angela Rayner's housing and local government ministry were the two departments still at the negotiating table on Sunday fighting for more cash, after weeks of trying to reach a settlement. Whitehall sources said the policing budget would not face a real terms cut, but there was still disagreement over the level of investment needed for the Home Office to meet its commitments. Rayner's department is understood to have reached an agreement with the Treasury late on Sunday night after last-minute wrangling over housing, local councils and growth funds. However, any failure to strike a deal would raise the prospect of a budget being imposed on an unwilling department. The spending review, taking place on Wednesday, is a chance for Reeves to hold up billions of pounds of capital spending as a sign she is working to repair public services after years of Tory austerity. After tweaking her fiscal rules last autumn, she has an additional £113bn funded by borrowing for capital spending. Her plans will include £86bn for science and technology across four years and an extra £4.5bn for schools – taking funding per pupil to its highest level ever. However, day-to-day spending is more constrained in some areas, while the NHS and defence swallow up higher allocations. As well as policing, the Home Office budget covers the border force and spending on asylum costs, while the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for funds for the affordable homes programme, councils, homelessness and regional growth. Labour has manifesto pledges to build 1.5m homes and deliver 13,000 new police officers. Pressed on the policing budget, the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, said Home Office and others would have to 'do their bit'. Funding for the police has the potential to become a politically difficult issue for Keir Starmer. Tory former shadow cabinet minister Robert Jenrick has been campaigning against transport fare dodging and Nigel Farage's Reform are also highlighting the issue. Asked about which public services will be prioritised, Kyle said 'every part of our society is struggling' and numerous sectors had asked Reeves for more money. 'On the fact that the police have been writing to the chancellor, they have,' he told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme. 'We also have letters from the universities, we have letters from doctors about the health service, we have letters from campaigners for child poverty writing to us, and other aspects of challenges in Britain at the moment. 'Every part of our society is struggling because of the inheritance that we had as a country and as a government.' He pointed to the £1.1bn extra funding already earmarked for police this year, as he defended Reeves's handling of the spending review process. 'We expect the police to start embracing the change they need to do, to do their bit for change as well. We are doing our bit,' Kyle said. 'You see a chancellor that is striving to get investment to the key parts of our country that needs it the most … You will see the priorities of this government reflected in the spending review, which sets the departmental spending into the long term. 'But this is a partnership. Yes, the Treasury needs to find more money for those key priorities, but the people delivering them need to do their bit as well.' While some areas of spending may be cut or receive only low increases, the NHS is set to receive a boost of up to £30bn by 2028, while defence spending is expected to rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Kyle defended the chancellor's approach to public spending, saying she was like Apple founder Steve Jobs who turned the company around when it was 90 days from insolvency. He told Sky News's Trevor Phllips: 'Now Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, moving to a series of products like the iPod. 'Now we're starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future. Some of the hi-tech solutions that are going to be high growth. We're investing in our space sector. All these really high, highly innovative sectors. 'We are investing into those key innovations of the future. We know that we cannot break this vicious cycle of high tax and low growth by doing the same as we always have done. We have to innovate our way out of this and we are doing so by investing in those high-growth sectors.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves faces crisis as cabinet conflicts threaten to block spending plans
Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces a crisis as cabinet conflicts threaten to block her spending plans, with disagreements over proposed cuts to housing and police force budgets. Yvette Cooper and Angela Rayner are pushing back against budget cuts, leading to a stalemate with the Treasury just 48 hours before Reeves is due to unveil the spending review. Cabinet minister Peter Kyle refused to rule out real-terms spending cuts to the police force and housing budget, while the Ministry of Housing is reportedly resisting such cuts. The social housing sector is warning of a potential crisis if funding cuts proceed, with concerns about a "cliff edge" in building more homes and councils already running deficits on housing budgets. Senior police chiefs have cautioned that Keir Starmer's pledge to cut crime will be unattainable without significant investment, citing new online threats and pressures from prison overcrowding.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves must do more than hope for the best when it comes to paying for Labour's spending
R achel Reeves has an unenviable task as she puts the final touches to the government -wide spending review she will unveil on Wednesday. It will be a defining moment for the Labour government as she sets out departmental spending limits up to the next general election. The headlines garnered in the run-up to the chancellor 's big day are misleading. We have been promised £15.6bn for local transport projects, mainly in the North and Midlands; £4.5bn a year for schools; £22.5bn a year for science and tech, and £187m to bring digital skills and AI learning into classrooms and communities. While all are worthy, the government is playing a rather cynical game. Some of its pre-announcements stem from the extra £113bn of capital spending for which Ms Reeves created room last October by sensibly changing her fiscal rules so investment projects do not count towards her target to balance revenue and spending by 2029-30. However, her determination to stick to her fiscal rules to prevent a wobble on the financial markets means that Wednesday's statement will impose a squeeze on day-to-day budgets. Although overall spending will rise by an average of 1.2 per cent a year on top of inflation, big increases for health and defence will mean real-terms cuts for other budgets, possibly including the Home Office (which funds the police), housing and local government. So there has been a bruising round of negotiations between the Treasury and ministers such as Angela Rayner, who is responsible for housing and councils, and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary. During a media round on Sunday, Peter Kyle, the science secretary, did not rule out real-terms cuts to the police and housing. While the squeeze will technically be less severe than the austerity over which George Osborne presided from 2010, the danger for Labour is that it will feel like austerity 2.0 for many voters. Labour backbenchers are well aware of this and, after the party's poor results in last month's local elections in England, have pushed ministers into a U-turn on Ms Reeves's disastrous decision to means-test the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and extracted a promise from Sir Keir Starmer of more measures to combat child poverty, possibly by easing the two-child limit on benefits. There could also be a tweak to the £5bn of cuts to disability and sickness benefits hurriedly announced in March. The government must prioritise the fight against child poverty; without intervention by ministers, it would rise significantly over the five-year parliament, which would be an indictment of Labour. Ms Reeves must find a way to make good her promise in her article for The Independent last week to ensure ' every young person can fulfil their potential '. Admittedly, that will not be easy, given all the conflicting pressures on her to spend more. Although Wednesday's statement will not be a Budget, Ms Reeves should do more than rattle off a list of spending commitments without making clear where the money will come from. There is already a risk of doing so on defence. The strategic defence review unveiled last week is based on the government's ambition to raise defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP in the next parliament but it has not yet allocated the funds to go beyond a rise from 2.3 per cent to 2.5 per cent by 2027. The UK will come under pressure to commit to 3.5 per cent at a Nato summit later this month. Ms Reeves should also provide clarity on which pensioners will receive winter fuel payments in the coming winter. The about-turn has been slow and messy, to the consternation of Labour MPs. In responding to such pressures, the chancellor and prime minister have cited the economy's 0.7 per cent growth in the first quarter of this year but there is no guarantee that will be maintained. They should not lose sight of the need to balance higher spending with genuine public sector reform. There will be a limit to how much can be achieved through 'efficiency savings'. The suspicion is that, in spending more on defence, winter fuel payments and child poverty, Sir Keir and Ms Reeves are willing the ends without providing the means. They should level with the public about how their sums will add up. For now, they may be tempted to adopt a Micawberish approach in the hope that the fiscal picture improves by Ms Reeves's second Budget in the autumn. Again, that is far from certain: more holes might be blown in her headroom against her rules by an uncertain global economic outlook in the age of Trump 2.0 and the Office for Budget Responsibility downgrading its optimistic forecasts for productivity growth. Unless she changed her rules to allow more borrowing, the chancellor would then have to implement tax rises or spending cuts or a combination of both. When things might get even worse, the chancellor needs more than a strategy of hoping for the best.
