MS - 8: Limiting Government Interference in Food Prices

[William.Croft]

Mr. Speaker, 

I rise this morning with yet another announcement about this Government's work to reign in the power of the state in order to meaningfully reduce the price of everyday goods. The core mission of the Right Way Forward agenda is to ensure the Government adopts a "slash and step back approach," whereby we eliminate costly and burdensome red tape in order to reduce the financial burden weighing on British families. One way in which Governments of all political persuasions over the past few decades has acted to drive up food prices is by instituting nefarious taxes on price floors on the cost of food. Under the guise of "helping," the British people make "better" decisions, bureaucrats have advocated for sin taxes and minimum prices in order to forcibly alter the behavior of individuals. The principle is flawed, and the impact is that every day people throughout the United Kingdom are forced to spend more of their hard earned pay packets on purchasing needlessly expensive food items. 

That is why, effective immediately, I am announcing that the Government is rescinding the planned introduction of a ban on multi-buy deals on food considered to be high in fat, sugar, and salt. This ban, scheduled to go into effect in just a few months time in 2023, would see small businesses and large fast food chains from being legally prohibited from offering Buy One Get One Free (BOGOF) deals at their locations across the United Kingdom. BOGOFs, which are currently permitted under law, allow grocery store and food retailers to offer discounted deals on packages of food. The most common example are the deals you'll find in, say, your local Nandos, that permit you to get two entrees or two sides for the price of one. Public Health England has recommended that these deals be banned in the interest of "public health," and my predecessor had planned to implement their recommendations. Today, the Government is announcing that the planned implementation of this recommendation is being terminated because we believe it will unfairly increase the cost of food, hamper business growth, and sets a dangerous precedent about the size and scope of the state. 

First, there is no doubt in my mind that this policy would serve only to force families to spend even more money on food and groceries at a time when the cost of living crisis is making it harder for families to put food on the table. Based on their own estimation, Public Health England admits that their policy would cost British families an additional £634 a year in food-related costs. As the supply chain crises and the war in Ukraine continues to drive up the cost of goods, families simply cannot afford to see their yearly food bills rise by even £60, let alone £600. The action we are taking today to preemptively terminate the implementation of this policy will save people money, and provide confidence to families across Britain that they're going to be able to keep food on the table for their children in the months to come. 

Second, allowing this policy to move forward would force unnecessary and burdensome regulation on businesses right at the time when our country needs business to flourish in order to create more jobs and drive economic growth. Businesses should be free to innovative, and pursue dynamic decisions when economic conditions require creativity. No one could have imagined just two years ago how radically our country, and indeed the entire world, would change in such a short amount of time. History has shown us that when adverse and unanticipated circumstances face our country, that it is individuals and small businesses that have the power and ability to use their unique skills to overcome the challenges we face as a nation. Tying the hands of businesses to provide innovative solutions to the cost of living crises prevents them from doing their part to help consumers, and creates undue costs that they will either have to eat, for lack of a better term, or pass on to already overwhelmed customers. 

Finally, and arguably most importantly, today's announcement sends the clear signal that under this Government the state will be doing less, not more. The entire concept of sin taxes, the tip of the spear wielded by the Nanny State, is inconsistent with a free society. As Prime Minister, I will always and unwaveringly fight to allow the British people to make their own decisions based on what they believe is right for them, rather than what some bureaucrats in a stuffy office believes they "should" be doing. Individuals, not the state, are best placed to make their own decisions. If we had the financial headway to remove sin taxes altogether, I'd be speaking with the Chancellor right now about doing away with them permanently. For now, however, the elimination of the proposed ban on multi-deal food buys sends a clear signal that this is a Government that will get out of people's way and empower citizens to lead their own lives free of state interference. 

I commend this statement to the House, and look forward to leaving the chamber and picking up two Big Macs on my way home. 

[Richard]

Mr. Speaker,

I am actually shocked that this is what I have to respond to today. But here we are, and respond I shall.

The Government, Mr. Speaker, is wasting this House's time by making us debate this order, something we discussed last year, again. Let's look at the facts. First - Public Health England is not made up of "some bureaucrats in a stuffy office" who know better than everyone else. Public Health England and its successor organisation, the UK Health Security Agency, are staffed with experts in their fields. UKHSA is led by Dame Jenny Harries, an accomplished physician with significant public health experience who helping to lead our nation's coronavirus response. Everything that we did in those early months - "Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives" to our further efforts to mask up to keep each other safe, happened because of leaders like her. We are here and alive because of experts like Dame Harries and her colleagues at UKHSA, so I find it mind-bogglingly stupid that we're going to ignore the scientific evidence now that it says something the Government disagrees with. Although, remembering the tragic tale of the Rt Hon member for West Suffolk and his member, I am not entirely surprised.

Obesity is a public health crisis. The Impact Assessment on this policy notes the following: "Obesity is a major cause of ill health in England, increasing the risk of heart disease, stroke, type II diabetes and some cancers, imposing a substantial burden and negative externality on the NHS and the wider economy in the long run." Enough said there, Mr. Speaker. But in the world that we live in now, obesity is even more of an issue. Obesity increases the risk of severe disease, mortality, and infection with COVID-19, the virus that is still present in our country. Researchers across the world have found the same thing - a higher body mass index was associated with ICU admission and critical disease. Be it in France, the United States, Singapore, or here in the UK, people died because they were obese and thus more susceptible for the virus. It is nice that the Rt Hon Prime Minister wants to give people freedom, but let's be clear - they can’t be free if they’re dead. 

The Prime Minister also states that moving forward with this policy would cost British families an additional £634 a year in food-related costs. That, Mr. Speaker, is clearly untrue, and I question where he is getting his data. Again, looking at the Impact Assessment, paragraph 39 states the following: "Although price promotions appear to be mechanisms to help consumers save money, data shows that they increase consumer spending by encouraging people to buy more than they intended to buy in the first place. Price promotions appeal to people from all demographic groups and increase the amount of food and drink people buy by around 20%." Multibuy promotions cause people to spend more money. They cause these large multinational chains, including his favorite, McDonald's, to earn more money because people will spend more money and buy more food. And the people who buy the more food will find that their wallets empty quicker than usual, and they're running on a tighter budget than ever before.

Foodbanks, Mr. Speaker, are seeing a record number of patrons. In fact, they're so in need of volunteers, that the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, volunteers at his local food co-op, the Chippy Larder, despite the fact that usage of foodbanks went up by over two thousand percent during his tenure as Prime Minister. If the current Prime Minister really wants to reduce the cost of living in this country, a crisis that only exists because his party has failed to adequately respond to the economic changes of Brexit and the pandemic, he can start by actually funding foodbanks and other charities, as the Labour Party has continued to call for over the last decade. The Prime Minister wants to give this country a sucker's deal with the illusion of lower prices, but more money ending up in the pockets of corporate executives in the fast food and energy industries. The real support that people across the United Kingdom need can only come through investing in communities - something I might call "levelling-up."