Like many of us, I’m not a believer in the Nanny State and feel that people should be able to live their lives and regulate their behaviour without recourse to the State, subject, of course, to compliance with the laws of the land.

However there are occasions when a government does need to take action for the protection of the more vulnerable members of society and a good example of this seems to be the proposal by celebrity chef and food campaigner Jamie Oliver for a “sugar tax” on soft drinks.

This, of course, is in response to the country’s obesity crisis, particularly in relation to children.  A problem shared with most parts of the western world, it has to be said.

Oliver’s argument is that by raising just an extra 10 pence in tax on a can of fizzy drink a further £1 billion a year can be added to NHS coffers to combat the illness and disease (diabetes being one of the biggest concerns) caused by consuming too much sugar. Naturally, the big food and drink industry corporations have objected to such a blatant attack on their profits but then they would do wouldn’t they?

In an ideal world parents should be trusted to pay attention to the dietary welfare of their children and most parents do this perfectly well. However, some parents are not so responsible and some, whether ill-informed, uncaring or just plain stupid, are causing untold damage to their offspring by allowing them to eat and drink whatever they want without thought for their health and well-being.