Source · Select Committees · Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Recommendation 16

16 Paragraph: 90

The closure of foodservice and hospitality businesses was a huge shock for their food and...

Conclusion
The closure of foodservice and hospitality businesses was a huge shock for their food and drink suppliers, particularly those providing perishable goods who were unable to find alternative markets quickly. The Government could have done more to anticipate problems that would arise, particularly as it was necessary Government health measures, rather than market forces, that caused severe economic disruption. This was particularly demonstrated by the crisis in the dairy sector, which we are examining in a separate call for evidence.
Paragraph Reference: 90
Government Response Acknowledged
HM Government Acknowledged
The Government is pleased with the Committee’s observations in relation to Defra’s response within conclusion and recommendation 1 and will continue to work closely with retailers. The Government was monitoring the situation through the Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) from the end of January and we were in contact with representatives of the Food Chain Emergency Liaison Group (FCELG) from early February. In early March, we began to receive intelligence from companies with European operations and, at that point, it became clear that the UK was likely to experience demand issues. Although empty shelves were being reported in some other countries, we now know that there were variations in the actual level of increased demand countries across Europe were experiencing. Italy, for example, experienced a relatively small increase that began in mid to late February, whilst Spain saw a sharp increase that peaked in the middle of March. In the UK, consumer purchasing of certain products surged in the weeks leading up to lockdown, with number of visits and basket size increasing significantly. This was portrayed in the mainstream media, and on social media, as the result of panic buyers stripping shelves of all available products. The reality was that a much more complex combination of behaviours led to demand for certain longer life products and staples, such as pasta, outstripping retailers’ ability to restock their stores. The fact that people were advised to avoid pubs, restaurants and cafes is also likely to have contributed to people purchasing more food in supermarkets. It is inevitable that UK supply chain would struggle to cope with the increased demand experienced in March and April, but the food industry response has demonstrated resilience and that it can adapt to uncertain events as they unfold. We are working closely with industry to learn from this experience, with the aim of minimising the likelihood of any future disruption to the food supply chain leading to shortages of products on shelves. Conclusion and Recommendation 3: It is entirely reasonable and predictable that consumers would want to buy more food in anticipation of a lockdown, the need to self- isolate if they developed COVID-19 symptoms; or school closures and changed working patterns resulting in more meals eaten at home. The Government and retailers, including convenience stores, failed to develop an effective joint communications plan in anticipation of increased consumer demand. At a time when the public was looking to the Government for advice on how to live safely, we consider that the Government could have made more effort to provide reassurances. In the event of further lockdowns or restrictions, the Government should ensure that more emphasis is placed on reassuring the public that there will be enough food and essential supplies for everyone.