COVID-19 and food supply Contents

4Key workers in the food sector

93.From 23 March, schools, nurseries and colleges “remained open only to a priority group of children and young people, children who have a parent who is a critical worker and vulnerable children”.275 Critical sectors included “Food and other necessary goods”, with key workers including “those involved in food: production; processing; distribution; sale and delivery; as well as those essential to the provision of other key goods (for example hygienic and veterinary medicines)”.276 During our inquiry we were interested in how key workers contributed to the effectiveness of food supply, and whether the Government had done enough to enable them to work safely.

94.We would like to put on record our unreserved thanks to all the key workers in the food supply chain whose efforts and sacrifices have meant that the nation is being fed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Government guidance for workplaces

95.With food being a critical sector, many businesses in the food supply chain continued to operate during lockdown. Government guidance for food businesses included the following advice:

a)social distancing measures should be implemented at entry points, in shared accommodation and at work;

b)wherever possible “employees should be organised into cohorts or groups built around natural work teams. Cohorts work together, take their breaks together, change together, and travel together if relevant”;

c)shift starting times, changeovers and breaks should be “staggered”;

d)hand washing facilities or hand sanitiser “should be provided throughout the workplace” and “anyone handling food must wash their hands frequently with soap and water for at least 20 seconds”.277

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) also published guidance on Adapting food manufacturing operations during COVID-19.278 It stated that the “current situation” should not change the requirements for the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in the food industry, “for the protection of workers, and where appropriate to prevent the contamination of food during food production”.279 The guidance stated that “inappropriate use and handling of face coverings could present a risk to food safety and hygiene as well as to the health and safety of staff” and that there should be “procedures in place for hygienic handling and storage or disposal” of face coverings worn by staff during travel to work.280

96.However, the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) was “particularly disappointed by the delay and lack of practical detail in the guidance for food and drink manufacturers which arises from different government departments”.281 It explained that:

In some cases, we have seen headline announcements but the detail underpinning this is slow to follow, resulting in uncertainty within companies of what measures to implement and next steps. This has meant that companies have had to use their best judgement in order to continue operating, while awaiting official advice on safe practices, for example on operating procedures in factories where social distancing by two metres may not be practicable.282

The FDF stated that “the guidance that is published has not always been fit for the sector”, citing the examples of “the guidance published in February 2020”, which “was not suitable for food and drink manufacturing” and “the long awaited Public Health England guidance which “contained limited practical information and less detail than the guidance already published by Food Standards Scotland and Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association several weeks earlier”.283 It had also been published in April “after a week of promises that it was ‘imminent’”.284 Nick Allen, Chief Executive of the British Meat Processors Association (BMPA), stated that “one of the challenges we had in the early days was the lack of clarity of the advice from Public Health England” and that:

There was one week where every day we were assured that, by the end of the day, we would have the information that we needed to discuss with our members and that they needed to discuss with the people working in the plants. We waited all week for it. Eventually, we were told it had come through on the Monday, and then […] it was held up another two or three days because it had to go through the devolved Governments. In the meantime, as an association, we formed our own best guidance for practice. It started in Northern Ireland, where they created a Northern Ireland protocol, and then we introduced it to all our plants.285

Ian Wright, CEO of the FDF, explained that it became necessary for the industry to introduce social distancing from 23 March, “immediately after” the Prime Minister announced the start of the lockdown but that social distancing measures “had been introduced in plants and factories in the two weeks before”.286

97.Ian Wright also told us on 19 May that “the guidance on masks has been a real concern for all of our members and everybody in the industry” and that “we are now in a position where face coverings are advised for the general public but, of course, they are not advised in food manufacturing plants because, if you come in off the street having worn a face covering, it will be unsanitary.287 Similarly, Nick Allen stated that “the clarity of the advice coming forward is still a bit vague, particularly around the face masks” and that “having some standard for it would be extremely helpful”.288 James Bielby Chief Executive, Federation of Wholesale Distributors, stated that “the lack of information” on “face coverings and their use in public settings where social distancing is not possible” had been “less than helpful”.289 Ian Wright also highlighted that “trying to get hold of face coverings, masks and that type of equipment has been a major issue through the whole of this”.290 The BMPA stated that “Government requests in early April to industry [about] what type of, and how much, PPE is required for them was strange” as “this was at a time when industry was awaiting government guidance for PPE for its workers”.291

98.Ian Wright suggested that “speedy issuing of guidance on all matters” was “something that the Government could look at for future crises” because “the machinery of Government was not set up for quick guidance to be issued”.292 The BMPA differentiated between the approaches of different Departments and stated that Defra had been “helpful and reactive”, noting that it had hosted “frequent conference calls” and had communicated effectively with the industry.293 However, FSA’s “initial approach was not cooperative and was inconsistent”.294 The BMPA stated that “decisions on the appropriateness of plants’ social distancing measures and PPE for workers and FSA staff were left to the local FSA teams instead of being dealt with centrally” which “led to local tensions and threats of closures of food factories”.295

99.The Secretary of State acknowledged that “there was a period of around a week when I know certain sectors of industry, particularly manufacturing, were asking for guidance and it took a little longer than we had perhaps hoped”.296 He considered that:

that was largely because we were bringing quite a lot of elaborate, sector-specific questions to [Public Health England] and asking them to try to find an approach that worked, that kept staff safe, that prevented the spread of the virus and that enabled certain environments to continue. […] Working out how that would be achieved in practice took a bit of time.297

With regards to face coverings, he stated:

The important thing to note is that there was already pressure on PPE supplies, and the scientific advice was always that the benefits of facemasks were probably quite limited. In a food environment, there is another problem, which is that a facemask can become a hygiene risk. […] There was quite a lot of anxiety from the manufacturers in particular that, if there was a requirement for facemasks, they would literally have to close down. All of these factors—the lack of efficacy in terms of controlling the coronavirus, the risk of other hygiene problems and the lack of availability—were weighed in the balance when we made these sorts of judgments.298

100.Guidance on measures that businesses should take to protect workers, such as guidance on how to introduce social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment, was not issued quickly enough. We commend the processors, manufacturers, retailers and trade unions that developed and implemented COVID-secure working practices before the Government had issued satisfactory guidance. It is disappointing that guidance on social distancing in the workplace was only published in April. We recognise the pressure the Government, and in particular Public Health England, was under at the time. However, yet again, it appears that the Government was somewhat slow to react and support food businesses in dealing with the impacts of COVID-19 prevention measures. The Government should ensure that improved co-ordination mechanisms are in place between government departments, public bodies and with the devolved administrations to ensure that in any future disruption, guidance can be developed, cleared and issued more rapidly. This may mean better resourcing of critical specialist functions, so they have the capacity to meet unexpected surges in demand.

Local outbreaks

101.Ian Wright stated that social distancing was “being observed in just about every circumstance where it can be observed”.299 He explained that in a “minority of cases” including “abattoirs and one or two other similar places”, the design of factories necessitated that workers “stand closely together”, but told us that Public Health England and the FSA had recognised that this was the case.300 Ian Wright explained that there was “a lot of work done in [the] first week [of social distancing]” to establish “how you could position people on the factory lines” in a safe manner.301 He described this as “a process across the industry of learning by doing”.302

102.Ian Wright told us on 19 May that across food manufacturing, “ONS figures show that the number of reported deaths due to COVID19 are really quite small” and that “when you consider that 500,000 workers have been going to work seven days a week for eight weeks, it is quite encouraging that we have not seen major infection rates, although we have seen a couple of relative hotspots, which is to be expected”.303 There were, however, several outbreaks in meat and poultry processing plants in the UK in June. For example, a 2 Sisters poultry processing plant in Anglesey was shut for two weeks after 217 coronavirus cases were found among the 560 staff.304 Asda’s meat processing site in Yorkshire saw 150 workers catch the virus, and three workers died after a small outbreak at a meat processing plant in Barnsley in May.305 Cold temperatures, poor ventilation and working in close proximity have been suggested as possible reasons for outbreaks.306 The union Unite argued that there was a “link between migrant worker exploitation and Covid-19 meat processing outbreaks”, with a “direct correlation between the treatment of migrant staff as ‘disposable assets’ and the spread of the disease in such environments”.307 Unite stated that meat processing factories “do not provide staff that need to self-isolate with company sick pay or any other form of financial support” which “increases the danger of individuals with Covid-19 going into work because they cannot afford to take time off”.308

103.On 25 June, the Secretary of State told the House that:

We have heard now of three outbreaks linked to meat plants. They have been picked up through the testing and tracing approach that has been adopted and we are reviewing the guidance. We suspect that these outbreaks might have been linked either to canteens or, potentially, to car-sharing arrangements in those plants. We will be revising guidance to ensure that businesses have the approach that they need to prevent further outbreaks in future.309

On 30 June, David Kennedy, Defra, told us that:

Four or five factories have had to be closed. Most of those have been voluntary; only one was forced to close. There have been a few more outbreaks, but we are talking about a population of 5,000 food manufacturers with over 50 workers in England, and 8,000 factories across the UK. That is not to diminish the importance. This has been my focus, with my team, working with Public Health England, the FSA and the Health and Safety Executive over the last week or so. We already have new guidance out to cover these situations in terms of what happens when there is an outbreak.310

104.In the previous Chapter we looked at the reopening of the hospitality and foodservice sector. It is too early to tell what impact reopening might have on the safety of staff and customers, but following the first weekend of reopening, it was reported that at least three pubs had closed after customers tested positive for coronavirus.311

105.While there have been some outbreaks in meat and poultry processing plants in England and Wales, these have been in the minority, which is a testament to the efforts of the industry to keep workers safe. Further investigations should be carried out by the Government and industry on the reasons for these outbreaks. We are concerned that factors such as a lack of statutory sick pay may discourage workers from self-isolating if they develop symptoms. The Government should gather data from industry and unions on how many workers could be disincentivised to self-isolate by their employment terms. The Government and industry should also evaluate whether migrant workers face other issues that increase the risk of outbreaks, for example language barriers and living and travel arrangements.