Author: admin

  • Jim Prior – 1978 Speech on the Newspaper Industry

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Prior, the then Conservative MP for Lowestoft, in the House of Commons on 18 May 1978.

    The subject of debate today is “Industrial relations in the newspaper industry”. I think that it points to the wisdom of the Opposition that they have tabled this matter for debate on a Supply Day. This is emphasised by the spate of comment in the national Press and on radio and television since the announcement was made last week. I believe that the problems go much wider than simply those that beset Fleet Street, although I suspect that a large part of this debate will concentrate on Fleet Street’s problems.

    The loss of papers in 1976 amounted to 72 million and in 1977 to 101 million. In the first three months of this year we lost 32 million copies of national daily and Sunday papers, and in the first four months of this year we lost 60 million.
    This is not only a problem for the capitalist Press, because I was interested to see that Tribune, in its special May Day edition, when it was hoping above all to be able to print large numbers of May Day greetings messages, found itself facing production difficulties. A notice in Tribune said:

    “We very much regret that because of production difficulties at our printers, over which we have no control, this week’s special May Day issue has to be severely curtailed.”

    This is a fairly widespread problem and is obviously a serious situation for the country. It is a situation that was unheard of a few years ago. It has always been one of the acceptable facts of British life that the papers were there on the breakfast table and that one could always rely on getting the paper of one’s choice early in the morning. It is only in the last few years that people have come to realise that they now do not know ​ whether they will receive their paper. Therefore, it is right that the House should debate this subject today. I believe that it should be a considered debate and that we should try to reach the maximum degree of agreement in all parts of the House.

    I begin by quoting something that the Leader of the House said in 1974 when he was Secretary of State for Employment. He said:

    “I agree that disputes which lead to frequent and persistent stoppages in the newspaper industry have a special significance, in the sense that they touch upon the free flow of opinion. If such disputes were to persist in the way that some people forecast, they could drain away the life blood of democracy in this country.”—[Official Report, 21st November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1531.]

    That was said nearly four years ago, and the situation today is certainly a good deal more serious than it was then.
    There is the whole question of the financial loss of those who work in the industry. There is a loss of the profits which could be put into new investment by management and companies and there is a loss of pay which could, in certain circumstances, have gone to the people who works in the industry. Secondly, there have been considerable losses for the wholesale and retail newsagents, commonly called the CTNs—confectionery, tobacco and newsagents. These have been going out of business, not entirely for these reasons but partly because of them, at the rate of about 200 a week. Their numbers in the past four to five years have fallen from around 34,000 to about 27,000.

    The people who run those shops are important in our society. They open their shops at all hours of the day or night and they perform an extraordinarily useful service to the community. We must try in every way we can to help them run their businesses. They have made strong representations to me and, I have no doubt, to all hon. Members. There is an employment factor involved here, because if the CTNs go out of business at the present rate we shall be adding even further to our unemployment problems. That is something of which we must not lose sight.

    There are also many implications for advertising. I have received a number of complaints over the past few days about the effect that the uncertainty over the ​ printing of newspapers has on the whole advertising industry. It is a lucky thing that at the moment the television companies are fairly full of advertising, otherwise, national newspapers would be suffering a great deal more than they are. The newspapers are suffering, and this in itself has a considerable effect on industry and commerce. If a company cannot plan an advertising campaign with the launching of a new product and be certain that the advertising will be available at the right time, this disrupts the selling of the new product and means that companies tend to go to the medium with which they can be certain of getting advertising space.

    The position is even more damaging than that. People from overseas who have looked at this country and admired not only our free Press but the miraculous way in which we have distributed our newspapers over a long time see the present situation and regard it as symptomatic of our malaise. By inference, that damages the reputation of our country and its ability to compete. For all these reasons, it is right that we should debate this subject.

    There is no shortage of analyses of the problems. Most of the problems are familiar. A leading trade unionist said to me this week “Fleet Street is in a mess because both sides have made it so. Bad management has been chiefly responsible, but the unions have lost control at national level and union leaders have been stripped of their authority.” I put that statement to a leading manager in Fleet Street and he agreed with every word of it. This is not a situation in which we can say that there is a lack of analysis or diagnosis of the problem.

    Is the present situation inevitable? Is it getting worse? Where will it end? I do not believe that the current position is inevitable. Other industries facing technological change are doing so without the trauma affecting Fleet Street. What is more—and we must be clear on this point—a lot of people are having to accept technological change who are a lot worse off and who have been offered much worse compensation than some of ‘the Fleet Street printers.

    I do not believe that it is inevitable that we should have got into this situation. Is the current position getting worse? I think that for the moment it is. It ​ is getting worse because, perhaps, management is at last starting to stand firm. Trade union leaders, trade unionists and Labour Members who know about this subject will know how important it is that when management has made a decision it should stick to it. I have had a good deal of evidence this week from trade union leaders to the effect that nothing has undermined their position so much as managers saying that they will do one thing and, 24 or 48 hours later, when they were frightened about losing circulation to some other newspaper, changing their mind and undercutting the position which the union leadership was trying to take in support of management.

    When I say that the situation is getting worse and that we are losing a larger number of papers because management is starting to stand firm, I must make another point. One of the circumstances of union ill discipline has been the changing pattern of newspaper ownership. About 20 years ago newspapers were small companies run by private individuals, and even if a publicly owned company was involved it was usually narrowly based on newspapers and treated by the newspaper proprietors as a private company. Now, individual companies have been steadily eliminated. Kemsley, Cadbury, Aitken and Astor have gone and, instead, newspapers are small parts of large, in some cases multinational, companies. There are Trafalgar House, Atlantic Richfield, the Thomson Organisation, Reeds, Pearson and so on.

    Because of the nature of control and because of the wealth of the parent companies, the top boards are not concerned so much either about ownership of newspapers or about the losses that standing up to strikes would involve for them. This will have the effect—it is already having such an effect—of more companies having the financial muscle to resist claims. The most obvious examples of this are The Observer and the Daily Express, where neither David Astor nor Max Aitken had the money to face strikes in the way that perhaps the present management is starting to do. This is an example of where union intransigence has brought its own reaction in terms of more powerful proprietors. Whether this is in the long-term interests of the Press is open to dispute. Whatever might be said about individual ​ proprietors, they knew all about the freedom of the Press. We shall have to wait and see whether the present proprietors know quite so much.

    Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

    I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I find it absolutely fascinating that he should develop this vital point of view. Would he not agree that one of the central problems is the fact that in the Fleet Street papers a great number of casuals are employed? The question of casual employment has always bedevilled every industry and has led to serious problems. The people who really want to solve the difficulties in Fleet Street should be thinking seriously about how to get away from casual employment in the industry.

    Mr. Prior

    This is obviously an important point. The casuals are very much part of the Sunday newspaper scene. They are people who have earned a pretty good screw during the week and want to pick up an extra £50 on a Saturday night by working for the Sundays. This is a general point, too. One of the things that has happened is that people no longer have a loyalty towards their papers. As a result, regrettably, the sort of situation to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has referred tends to occur.

    I draw the attention of the House to an extract from an excellent publication entitled “Programme for Action” which deals with the report of a body on which management and union leaders sit. There was full agreement on this report. Referring to the future of the industry and the programme’s package, it says:

    “To adopt this package is not therefore to accept the soft option. But rejection of it would result in titles continuing to fail as newspaper economies forced them out of business. The inevitable consequences would be compulsory redundancy with little or no advance warning to workers and unions. No Government aid would be available to workers and unions. New forms of printed communications utilising the new technology, if necessary, printed abroad, could compete more and more successfully with a diminishing range of British national newspapers.”

    That is the view of the joint standing committee for the national newspaper industry, which met to consider this problem.

    What advice and help should the House give? We all have a deep interest in the maintenance of a competitive free Press, giving a wide choice in political attitudes, analysis of the state of the nation, highbrow or lowbrow, sport or entertainment—the whole gamut. We have a deep interest in all of that. Certainly this “Programme for Action,” drawn up by the joint standing committee, points the way to the solution. I believe that a renewed effort should be made to gain its acceptance. Perhaps an attitude survey of shop-floor reaction, sponsored by management and unions, could show how better to get the message across.

    I want to look at the management side for a minute. I believe that the management of newspapers has been subject to less influence in industrial relations than perhaps the editorial columns have exerted on nearly every other interest in the country. I cannot help thinking to myself sometimes that, if only the management of the newspapers had subjected themselves to such editorial advice as we have been subjected to in the House or industry generally has been subjected to on various matters, they might not be in quite the mess that they are.

    There are one or two things that one can say. I believe that there is not enough involvement and participation at shop-floor level. There must be more down-the-line personnel involvement. It seems to me that too often when something goes wrong it is to the top man that people go, whereas in industry that sort of thing would not happen. There would be much more managerial content the whole way down the managerial line. There is nothing more damaging in industrial relations—I suppose that we all learn this the hard way—than strong words which are followed by weak action or sometimes by no action at all. That is a lesson that needs to be learnt by management too.

    On the union side—

    Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Prior

    Is not the hon. Gentleman going to take part in the debate? If he is, he had better make his own speech.

    Union leaders must reassert their undoubted authority. They must use their ​ strength, and, if necessary, they must get together in order to do so. They cannot go on saying, as I think they are inclined to do at present, “We are so fed up with Fleet Street that we’re washing our hands of what happens there”, because it is far too important. What happens in Fleet Street is vital nationally. Therefore, they must take a personal interest in what happens.

    I believe that union leaders have adopted a responsible attitude. I do not want to praise them, because if I did so I should do them no good. I think that they have adopted a responsible attitude, but I hope that they will exert all their pressures to make certain that they can achieve the necessary discipline. In this respect, what is absolutely vital is a proper disputes procedure. The disputes procedure laid down on pages 28 and 29 of the “Programme for Action” seems to me vital. It is a first-class document, one which should be followed.

    We cannot afford the constant disruptions. I think it is true to say that there has not been an official dispute in Fleet Street for some while. All the disputes have been unofficial.

    Next, I want to say a word to the workers and to quote to them words which were said to me the other day: “Unless there is an industry, there is nothing to fight about. If they go as they are at the moment, there will not be anything to fight about.”

    The vast majority of printers, as we all know them—we in this House probably know them better than most other people do—are decent people. What we see is the influence of the few being allowed to sway the many. It is not an unusual state of affairs where management has been weak. Those weaknesses can be exploited. There is no point in talking about holding pistols to the heads of these people or anything of that nature.

    I have tried to analyse the various problems dispassionately. I hope that a message can go out from the House today that we do not like what is going on. We recognise how damaging it is from the point of view of the industry, those who work in it and a free Press. We expect to see authority restored and common sense prevail. We are telling the industry, all sections of it, to get round the table again and sort it out, and sort it out quickly.

    I turn to another matter, which is much more a question for the provincial and magazine Press than for Fleet Street, but is also a matter of considerable concern. I refer to the whole question of the National Union of Journalists and the control it tries to exercise or might try to exercise were it to have a closed shop. I should like to put the matter in this way. One understands the problems of young journalists. One sees that in a number of provincial papers they have been badly paid. They see the much greater pay and much greater strength that perhaps the linotype operators have gathered for themselves, and they say to themselves “If they can do that as a result of a strong union, why can’t we have the same?”

    There is no doubt that in many respects a number of journalists in a number of newspapers have been badly paid, and they look to the closed shop as a means of giving them the collective strength that they feel they otherwise lack. I understand that, but there are too many examples now where a closed shop certainly could be used, and would be used, as a means of controlling what was published. In this respect I should like to quote from a leading article in The Times some months ago:

    “Rigid application of the closed shop in journalism creates an unacceptable risk of restraint upon liberty. Effective control of what is or is not printed would be put in the hands of a single politically active organisation. The NUJ would be able to decide who wrote for the press and to require its members to write in a particular way on pain of effective exclusion from their trade. The union’s present leaders may be fully determined never to exploit the powers that a closed shop would give them. But the political currents in the union are strong and it is impossible to be certain that the same will always be true.”

    That is why we on the Conservative Benches have stated that any Press charter should be firm about the right to join or not to join a union. What has happened to the Press charter? When does the Secretary of State expect to be able to bring a charter before the House?

    I now have a further suggestions to make to the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have recently stated—at any rate, they have come out in the Press—the conditions for union membership agreements within certain Civil Service unions. I do not like closed shops, but if one is to have a closed shop the union membership agreement must be drawn in ​ a certain way to give freedom to individuals to decide whether they will pay union dues, pay to a charity or use some other means of paying.

    It seems to me that the conditions that the Government are laying down for union membership agreements for their own employees in the Civil Service are perfectly reasonable and suitable for the conditions of a union membership agreement, for example, in the newspaper industry, because it would give that freedom for the individual journalist to decide whether he wished to join a union. If he did not wish to join, he would not be subject to the pressures of discipline which the union might try to exert if he was writing material with which it disagreed.

    I believe, therefore, that the Government have another way out of this situation now, not just through the Press charter but through stating that they would support union membership agreements with the sorts of provision that they have discussed themselves and which we have been talking about for some time. That is another thing on which I believe that the Government should now give a lead.

  • Giles Shaw – 1978 Speech on Bread Prices

    Below is the text of the speech made by Giles Shaw, the then Conservative MP for Pudsey, in the House of Commons on 18 May 1978.

    I beg to move,

    That this House takes note of the Bread Prices (No. 2) Order 1976 (Amendment) (No. 5) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 516), dated 31st March 1978, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st March.

    We turn from the problems of Fleet Street and industrial relations at a fairly late hour at night to discuss another problem which is in no way related to it, namely, the maximum price orders for bread. We make no apology for seeking to have a debate on this matter. As the House will observe, it is not a Prayer but a motion to take note that we are debating.

    There are, we believe, very good reasons why we should set aside a little time to discuss questions concerning the pricing of bread and the methods under which the pricing is currently administered. Let me say at the outset that what we are not debating tonight is a motion which could result in a change in the bread price. This is not a debate to affect prices in the shops, as might be the case if we were to find ourselves asking the Government to tear up the order and reduce the price of bread by 2p, 3p or 4p.

    I suspect that hon. Members on each side of the House know full well that there is a substantial gap in the relationship between the maximum price order that we are debating and the prices which are charged for bread in the shops. This has nearly always been the case, so that we have to admit straight away that the maximum price order permits a range of prices in the standard loaf between 28½p and 31½p, according to the area of the country.

    We are not debating what the consumer should be charged for bread. We are debating the method by which the Government are using a maximum price order under the Prices Act 1974 to seek to influence that price. The maximum price order has been operating for some time. It came into effect, according to Statutory Instrument No. 516, on 3rd April 1978, so that any views we may seek to express about it now must be essentially retrospective. This is another ​ reason why we are not talking here about suddenly reducing overnight the price of bread in shops.

    There are, in my view, important reasons why we should have a discussion about the order and why we should question the wisdom and, indeed, the desirability of orders of this kind. I think it could be reasonably said that they seem to be sadly irrelevant to the real problems of the baking industry and the distribution, the pricing and selling of bread today.

    I think it right that I should remind the House of some of the actions which the Government have taken in recent years in the name of affecting the price of bread. There was the initial period of substantial subsidy, followed by the steady withdrawal of subsidy. After that came the maximum price orders, one of which we are now debating. Then we had the imposition of discount controls, which were subsequently removed. Then we had the price check scheme, involving a wide range of household foods. Then we had the implementation of changes in the Price Code. This was admittedly a code which had existed for some time back. The Price Code system was then replaced by the operation of the Prices Commission under the new legislation introduced by the Conservative Government.

    There have been frequent investigations by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the operation of the bread industry. It has considered the steadily reducing number of large bakers and whether they were operating within or without the public interest. I doubt whether there is an industry in the country which has been examined by the Commission as frequently as the baking industry.

    It is not surprising, therefore, that one could say about bread prices and the baking industry that there has been virtually no agency of the Government, no method of intervention or piece of legislation which involves pricing or regulation which has not been applied at some time, and in some strength, to the operations of the baking industry with particular reference to the price of bread. Our colleagues in the baking industry would say ​ that these various devices which Governments have introduced have been operated with great frequency.

    It is not just a matter of taking a quick dip-stick here and there. It is a matter of regularly examining in depth the way in which the industry operates and the prices for bread which it charges to the consumer. It is not surprising that in recent years the baking industry has been in some state of turmoil. It is also not surprising that many of those who work in the industry should feel that the scale of intervention and examination and the number of restraints placed upon the marketing operations for bread have contributed in large measure to the decline of certain sectors of the bread industry and to a general air of lack of confidence in the way in which the industry operates.

    As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission pointed out in its report last year, Government interference has played a major part in creating the industry’s present problems. Tonight we are discussing a maximum price order for the 28-ounce loaf which in area 1 involves a recommended price of 28½p. I should correct myself. It is not even a recommended price, it is a statutorily imposed maximum price. No loaf in area I should be sold at a price higher than 28½p. Within the area of variations the scale rises to 31½p in area 4. The standard recommended price, therefore, ranges from 28½p to 31½p. What a far cry that is from the 1974 General Election campaign when there were charges and counter-charges across the hustings of the possibility and threat of the “three bob loaf”. That was the way in which bread prices were talked about in the not-so-distant past. Now we are talking about bread prices reaching a figure double that operating at the time of the 1974 General Election. That reason alone justifies the opportunity to debate the pricing of bread in this House.

    A lot of howling took place when the threat of 15p per loaf was suggested. Indeed, from then on the price of bread has escalated rapidly in line with the general rate of inflation and with the hideous increase in costs which manufacturers have incurred. In my view the price of bread has probably for far too long been the talisman by which the cost of living is measured. One can understand ​ that. There has been the old concept of bread being the staff of life. It has been the diet of the English, Scots, Welsh or Irish for so long that it has become a traditional form of measuring the daily diet and the traditional way of describing the impact of prices or costs on the individual family.

    On would not deny that bread is an extremely important component in the housewife’s budget. But one of the penalties of being a talisman by which we wish to measure costs or prices in general as they affect the family is that Governments cannot leave the price alone. It has been one of the things which magnetically have attracted them to seek to influence the price, to subsidise it, to stabilise it, to control it, to regulate it or to offer, as we have in this order tonight, a means by which a maximum price, area by area, can be established. Yet, for the most part, in recent times the consumer has not been as besotted with the price of bread as perhaps Governments have. Let us face it—there has been a steady, consistent and long-term trend away from the consumption of bread.

    Since the war, the basic consumption has fallen from some 50 ounces per head per week—I make no apology for using the old Imperial measures, which now the Government have blessed—to 30 ounces per head per week. It is estimated that in April 1978, consumption was running at some 3 per cent. below what it was in April 1977. Frankly, there appears to be little expectation that this trend will alter.

    Therefore, I think that one can conclude that the days of an increasing bread market are now over and the days in which the consumer was, as it were, wedded to that particular form of nutrient are also over. There is too much competition in processed foods. There are too many other alternatives on offer to consumers in forms and at prices which they find attractive.

    Let us not deceive the House. Bread continues to be a very important commodity. But the trend of consumer expenditure and consumption of bread has clearly shifted, and in my view it has probably shifted permanently.

    Therefore, consumption has been affected, and therefore, the importance and the capacity of the industry have been affected.

    On 8th April there was an article in The Times entitled

    “Britain’s shrinking stomach for bread.”

    No doubt the Under-Secretary has read it with some care. It contains this sentence:

    “If people did not turn back to eating bread in the lean years of economic recession, they are hardly likely to start eating more of it when they have more money in their pockets.”

    Therefore, I think that one could turn to the prospects for the bread market and say that it is almost certain that the days of heavy or higher consumption of standard forms of bread will probably not return if what we hope is achieved—namely, an increase in the standard of living, with more money available for expenditure on the whole range of foodstuffs. The consumption pattern has probably moved on and moved down.

    However, given that particular climate of how the consumer behaves towards bread, Government policies on price regulations and profit control have been operating in entirely the other direction. In fact, Government policies in this area have been pretty disastrous. Can anyone really deny that if Spillers Company had been earning adequate profits on its baking of bread and bread products, 8,000 jobs would be available today which, alas, are not available, and presumably 14 or more of the 23 plants would now be available for work when they are now threatened with closure?

    Surely this is a sad commentary on the ways in which Governments have sought to intervene in the marketing of bread and the profitability of baking, to a point at which one-third of the industry, in terms of the three major plant bakers, has been forced to close. It is a very odd commentary on the Government’s attitude to this problem that the Secretary of State did not see fit to refer a change in the industry’s marketing potential, from three manufacturers to but two manufacturers, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

    Obviously, the Secretary of State took the view at the time that what was more important in the general interest, as he saw it, was the preservation of the maximum number of jobs rather than the preservation of optimum variety and availability to the consumer. We must take note that in relation to competition policy, ​ however strident the Secretary of State may be, when it comes to the crunch of decision, his decision clearly lies as it did in the case of sugar refining, in favour of maintaining the optimum number of jobs, even if this means that the consumer is put at risk of a reduced variety and a reduced availability of products. That is something to which we ought to return on another occasion.

    However, with the prices charged for bread and the costs incurred in the baking of bread, all of our major United Kingdom bakers are operating at unprofitable levels. Associated British Foods and Rank Hovis McDougal have made no secret of the fact that the baking operations of their groups are unprofitable.

    We are debating a maximum price order for the products of an industry in which at this time a year ago there were three major plant bakers. There are now two. That reduction has taken place with the blessing of the Secretary of State. The baking and the production of the product are unprofitable for each of the two remaining plant bakers.

    We have to hope that the so-called rationalisation, which is the polite word for what is now happening, will result in an improvement in the utilisation of capacity and in a reduction of overheads per ton of bread produced, which might help profit margins in baking. What we cannot accept is that maximum pricing is a sensible and relevant system of handling a market when the unprofitability of the lines on which we are seeking to impose prices has been so clearly demonstrated and has been taken to such inordinate lengths that major closures have occurred.

    Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

    If the hon. Gentleman’s main complaint is the unprofitability of the industry, will he at least mention that wheat imports into the EEC are now bearing a 100 per cent. levy? Is it not natural that if the main raw material of the industry is artificially increased in price by 100 per cent., the industry will become less profitable for that reason?

    Mr. Shaw

    I think that that is so, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree, even under the restrictions pertaining now under the Price Commission, the recovery of those raw material prices is admissible by the Price Commission as ​ costs. Under the Price Code, which operated for most of the period under discussion, such recovery was freely admissible.

    Mr. Jay

    But that would mean passing on the 100 per cent. levy on the import price to the consumer, would it not?

    Mr. Shaw

    The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The argument that I adduce is that the price of bread has been held down for so long to a level that is clearly unprofitable that there is an inability to recover costs. The consumer has been encouraged to believe that there is a low and acceptable price for bread. That is not so.

    Only two policies can emerge from that situation. We either drive people out of work because the industry is operating unprofitably, or we seek to contain prices through subsidy and taxation. The Government have achieved some progress in that latter course—namely, their decision to reduce the subsidy and the level of taxation. However, they still seek to impose some control on the price of bread by means of maximum price orders. That is entirely artificial. It distorts the market for the buying and selling of bread.

    It has been long held on the Opposition Benches that, however skilfully we design intervention in the market place in pricing policy, the distortions that we create will inevitably come back in one form or another to rebound to the discredit of those who intervened. It comes back either in the unpalatable form of increased prices or in decreased jobs. It does not seem that there is any other way in which we can adequately have an effect on supply and demand of a product as sensitive as bread to import costs

    Mr. Jay

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that at least one of the factors that has produced the distortion is the import levy that is now having to be paid?

    Mr. Shaw

    The right hon. Gentleman is probably quite right. Import levies have helped to increase the costs that the manufacturers have had to face. However, I do not think there is a food manufacturer who would say now that he would willingly withdraw from the Community. The food industry was totally in favour of entering the Community. ​ It has readily sought to alter its operating practices to compete effectively within the Community. I know of no influence in the bread baking industry, parlous though its state has been, that suggests that it would be materially helped if the industry were to come out of the Community and were to operate outside it.

    It may be that we are moving a little far from the maximum price order that we are debating. However, the lesson that I seek to draw has been satisfactorily put. We are talking about an intervention operation that has had a fairly miserable history for the baking industry. The fact that the bread industry is unprofitable today is almost sufficient reason in itself for objecting to the passage of the order.

    But there are other reasons why we think it right to have a debate on this issue and to offer the House an opportunity to discuss the system which is used. The use of maximum price orders is a hangover from the Prices Act 1974, which gave power to the Secretary of State to operate maximum pricing for those products—in particular, food products—which enjoyed subsidy. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) made it clear, with some reluctance I think, that maximum price orders should be accepted for subsidised products. We concede that, where the taxpayer is involved in paying an element in the price in order to restrict it, his contribution should not be pocketed for other purposes and the consumer should have the benefit clearly transferred in terms of a lower maximum price.

    Therefore, maximum price orders came about as an integral part of the food subsidy system, and we accept that.

    The fact now is that food subsidies have, with one exception, been phased out. Subsidy is no longer paid on bread.

    Indeed, the subsidy has not been paid since the spring of last year. Why do the Government seek to continue a regulatory system of maximum pricing for bread when no subsidy is being paid?

    I remind the House of the Committee stage of the Prices Act 1975 when the Under-Secretary of State, confirming the position, said:

    “The orders under Section 2 are necessary to ensure that the benefit of the subsidies is ​ passed on to retail prices. They will be required so long as any food on which subsidy has been paid is available for retail sale.”

    So far, so good. But later the hon. Gentleman went on to say:

    “The position, however, on the use of the powers outside the area is that the subsidised food remains the same as it was when the powers were taken last year. It is necessary to have them available for use if required, so that we are in a position to take action if there has been extraordinary inflationary pressure in a particular area. We have no intention at the moment of using the powers other than in the matter of subsidised foods, but we intend them to be kept as a reserve power if necessary to regulate prices in the shops for a limited number of products.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 25th February 1975; c. 224.]

    That was the expression of policy that the Under-Secretary of State gave to the Prices Bill Committee in 1975, and that broadly resulted in an extension of the regulatory powers ad infinitum. Indeed, the Secretary of State now has powers for use of the regulation on any foodstuff or, as I interpret it, any other product if he deems it to be right.

    Therefore, we must ask the Under-Secretary to tell us why the Government are continuing to operate maximum price orders for bread when the subsidies have been removed. Is he using the regulatory powers which he obtained under the Prices Act 1975, for which, as I see it, there is no closing date? If so, we should have a statement on the Government’s policy on price regulation. If he feels that it is necessary for bread, there is no doubt in my mind that he may feel it necessary for many other products.

    The Minister may say that the Government intend to use this regulatory power on foodstuffs or, indeed, on other products or services in this election year as we come up to a decision. The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House, if he wishes to continue with maximum pricing on bread, to explain the policy under which he is operating, because it is clearly no longer related to food subsidy. The first serious question is what is the policy under which the Minister is operating, and why.

    The Under-Secretary will argue in the second place that it is necessary for him to have these price regulatory powers in order to control retailers’ profits. This is not an argument that can be adduced. Under the Price Commission’s operation, the retail trade has margin controls which ​ operate at the gross and net levels. There is no way in which one can adduce the necessity for a regulatory price power such as the one we are discussing in order to control retail margins. That is already available under the Price Commission.

    It is not just a matter of the way in which we are issuing price orders. There are other aspects of the old subsidy system which are continuing. The retailer has still to keep records of sales, even though there is no subsidy element involved in those sales. Therefore, the small shopkeeper is involved in an administrative load which is unnecessary.

    I put it to the Under-Secretary firmly that if he seeks to demonstrate that he recognises the problems of small shopkeepers and traders—or large ones, for that matter—to reduce the administrative burden of an operation such as maximum pricing and the maintenance of records would be simple. He could do it without fear of any consequence to the consumer, but in the knowledge that there would be a lifting of the load that is on the retailer—and that is something sensible and long overdue.

    One might argue that a maximum price order was a sensible form of consumer protection. I consider it to be a fatuous form of consumer protection. Originally these orders were all to be displayed, no doubt prominently, in shops. After various altercations with the Opposition on the Prices Bill, the Government eventually very grudgingly agreed that the maximum prices notices may be kept for reference and may be asked to be inspected rather than displayed, though the requirement for display is still in the Act. We now have the alternative of availability of them on request.

    The maximum prices notices are of no consumer value. No self-respecting housewife will go into a shop and ask to see the maximum prices order for bread before making her purchase. We have no right to expect her to work in that way. If the notices have no relevance to the consumer, what relevance have they to anybody?

    The maintenance of the regulation is in the hands of the hard-pressed weights and measures inspectors or the trading standards officers. They will have the right to ​ ask to see that retailers have these maximum prices orders available on request on their premises. But if we are merely producing orders in the House through the whole panoply of Government machinery in order to allow them to be examined when the occasional trading standards officer calls, we are not making a sensible contribution to the consumer or the retailer of bread. The matter has got out of hand and is ludicrous.

    Another reason for objecting to the maximum prices orders is that they get out of date so easily. The order that we are debating, which is order No. 516, is virtually already superseded by order No. 545, which, although it has not been discussed in the House, was laid on 11th April and came into operation on 2nd May.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

    Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the numbers that he has quoted are related not to bread orders but to Statutory Instruments made in 1978?

    Mr. Shaw

    The Statutory Instruments are related to the general parliamentary process, but both orders Nos. 516 and 545 are related to bread prices, as I am sure the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) recognises. The order that was laid before the House on 11th April and came into force on 2nd May relates to the metrication of loaves of bread.

    We are bound to ask whether the Minister expects that order to be withdrawn. If the Government are proceeding with an order that, as the explanatory note makes clear, withdraws the prescribed Imperial quantities in which certain whole loaves may be made for sale and replaces them with a net weight of 400 grams or multiples of 400 grams, how is that consistent with the new posture that the Secretary of State has taken up in regard to metrication? I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us a clean, crisp and definitive answer.

    It is self-evident that these orders get out of date quickly because prices and costs in the baking of bread continue to rise as general costs rise. Therefore, though there may be a holding of the price for a matter of months, there is no doubt that maximum price orders will have to be reviewed, probably several times a year as the price of a standard ​ loaf will rise. If that is the case, how valuable is the system to the consumer?

    We must recognise that for every order there is an administrative cost. Someone somewhere is preparing it, someone is printing it and someone is distributing it. Just how costly is this operation? How much money is tied up from public funds in the administration of such orders? The House would be interested to know.

    Without the element of subsidy in the bread price, the orders are nothing more than a disguised form of retail price maintenance. This is a new principle for the Government to adopt. Happily, the competitive nature of the industry is such that much lower prices than the maximum are available to the widest range of consumers, but if we are operating a maximum price system, that at least is a containment of the retail level and if it is an unprofitable level, it is a stupid level at which to contain the price. Again, it seems an absurd way of operating.

    I contend that it is no part of sensible Government policy to apply maximum price orders for a whole range of foodstuffs or other goods. Why should bread be singled out in this way? The only reason is that bread is a talisman, has a special place and is a magnetic field in which the Government seek to intervene.

    I think that we are discussing merely the tip of the iceberg of bureaucratic incompetence that is handling our affairs. I do not believe that it has any relevance to the consumer or an effective part to play in the Government’s total pricing policy. It is an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy, an irritant to the shopkeeper and another wretched chore to weights and measures and trading standards officers. It should be taken away and torn up. It is a piece of intervention which has long since outlived its usefulness.

    We take note of the order because that is the parliamentary parlance, but we take note of it because it is an order that is scarcely worth ignoring.

    Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

    The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) addressed the House for 35 minutes in his usual urbane, civil and reasonably pleasant manner—but that is the end of my praise.

    The whole of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was oriented around the convenience of the producer and distributor. There were references to the consumer, but the hon. Gentleman claimed that the order had no relevance to the consumer. No doubt the Minister will deal with that claim. I can think of one way in which it could be helpful.

    I can imagine someone who lives a long way from a bakery, perhaps in the Highlands of Scotland who, but for a maximum price order such as this, would have to pay a much higher price. I see the hon. Member for Pudsey nodding his head. He did not quote any of the figures in the order. The maximum price for a 28oz. standard wrapped or unwrapped loaf is between 28p and 30½p. I notice that the same sized wholemeal loaf or milk bread has a maximum price in most areas of 36p. I agree that for certain reasons—perhaps good reasons—prices might be below that. We welcome that. But what change will one get out of 50p if one has to pay 36p for a loaf of wholemeal bread?

    Bread is now becoming expensive. It ill behoves a party which supported the increase in bread prices when a century ago it was entwined by the Corn Laws to criticise an effort by a Government to keep bread prices down.

    Mr. Giles Shaw

    I understand the hon. Member’s deep anxiety to associate us with the Corn Laws, which are as relevant to this debate as the other matters that he will raise. He must address himself to a simple proposition: if the costs involved in the baking and distribution of bread go up, would he wish to see the price subsidised through taxation?

    Mr. Spearing

    We are not dealing with subsidies. I turn to the question of prices. The hon. Member for Pudsey mentioned the 1976 Price Commission report. I refer to table 4 of its 13th report. It shows that in 1976 the bakers paid about £413 million for flour and that the cost of flour was a high proportion of the total baking cost. In Great Britain the cost of flour was 7.3p for a 28oz loaf compared with a total production cost of 15.35p. A more up-to-date figure appears in the figures for September 1977. This shows that flour was 9.24p, out of a 21.21p cost of producing the same loaf.

    Unlike many processed foods and other food commodities, the cost of flour is relatively high. This is where we return to the Corn Laws. Flour comes from grain, which, in common parlance, is wheat or corn. The cost of wheat will to some extent determine the cost of flour.

    In his desire to deal with the order in his own way the hon. Member for Pudsey omitted one of the great mysteries of the bread market. I hope that the Minister will say something about it. There might be narrow margins and sometimes losses involved in the baking of bread. But we should like to hear about the millers’ margin—the difference between the cost of grain and the equivalent flour, making allowance for the side extractions of germ. Are the millers’ costs reasonable? Do they tie up? Is there, as many people suspect, a great deal of profit made by the millers because of the difference between the costs of grain and flour? That might offset some of the alleged losses involved in baking and distribution. The figures in the Price Commission report unfortunately do not show that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to cast some light on that point—if not tonight, then in due course.

    I wish to draw attention to the cost of wheat. The cost of the raw material is a very high proportion of the cost of bread. The hon. Member for Pudsey may laugh off the idea of the Corn Laws, but he and his party, like many other hon. Members, alas, voted for the taxation of imported wheat. Wheat from the rest of the EEC does not bear a tax, but wheat from North America and our other traditional suppliers of bread wheats certainly is taxed. That fact is not as well known as it might be. I put a Question to the Minister of Agricluture on this matter on 19th April. He told me:

    “During 1977 1·5 million tonnes of common wheat mainly of breadmaking quality were imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC. The value of these imports before payment of levies was £117·6 million. The net revenue derived from import levies on common wheat during the same period was £45·1 million.”

    I do not know what the gross revenue was, but the buyers of wheat and, ultimately, the people who consume it paid ​ over £45 million in levies. We may surmise that a very high proportion of that money, if not all of it, went on the cost of bread.

    But that is not the end of the story. In past years a very high proportion of bread wheats consisted of American Northern Spring, or its equivalent Australian varieties. Millers were able to add a small proportion of soft British wheats. There is, however, a surplus of wheat in the EEC and it has been found desirable to increase the proportion of soft wheat in bread flour, thus reducing the amount needed to be imported. The resulting flour requires different processes and different mixes and probably adds to the problems of baking and of maintaining quality. But that change does not necessarily decrease the price of the flour. The EEC wheat which is used is much more expensive than the hard wheats that would otherwise be imported.

    I hope that the Minister will tell us, broadly, the proportion of EEC wheat as compared with non-EEC wheat used to make bread. If it is half-and-half, it means that we are paying about £90 million a year more than we need to for our bread grain. Perhaps the proportion is less or more than that. But, whatever the proportion, the ultimate additional cost has to be met by the consumer whom the hon. Member for Pudsey pretends to want to help, but in truth does not. If he did he would have mentioned some of the matters I have raised.

    I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm the broad outline of the points that I have made, and that if the figures that I have produced are not correct he will send me a letter correcting them because I am sure that this is something that the other hon. Members will wish to follow up and that people who buy and eat bread will want to know the facts.

    Not only may we be spending between £40 million and £90 million a year more than we need to on our bread because of the new corn laws voted in by the Conservatives; the EEC is overflowing with wheat. In a Written Answer on 11th May—column 596 of Hansard—the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, told me that in 1975–76 the EEC exported 9 million ​ tonnes of wheat, with a provisional figure of 4½ million tonnes for 1976–77, and that it was having to pay out about £158 million in the process for dumping it on world markets. Not only do we have to pay more in tax for our bread, but some of that tax is apparently going to help to dump wheat on a world market that does not necessarily require it.

    I hope that in taking note of this order we shall not only note the high maximum prices—although I welcome the limits, for the reasons that I have mentioned—but that in due course the Government, or the Price Commission, will disgorge the figures that will illustrate just some of the reasons why we are having to pay more.

  • George Thomas – 1978 Statement on Lord Selwyn-Lloyd

    Below is the text of the statement made by George Thomas, the then Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 18 May 1978.

    Right hon. and hon. Members have learned with deep sorrow of the death of Lord Selwyn-Lloyd, my immediate predecessor as Speaker of this House.

    I wish on behalf of all parties and of each and every hon. and right hon. Member to pay tribute to the memory of one of the most outstanding parliamentarians of our generation.

    Both in peace and in war, Selwyn Lloyd proved his utter devotion to our country. It fell to him to carry the burden of some of the highest offices of State and he never spared himself in fulfilling his responsibilities. When he became Leader of this House he very quickly earned both the unqualified respect and the abounding affection of hon. and right hon. Members in all parties. He was a doughty fighter for the rights of Back Benchers, and we shall always be in debt to him for the reforms he helped to initiate.

    Selwyn Lloyd was a man incapable of malice. He enjoyed the remarkable blessing of never nursing a grudge. His patent integrity and his massive loyalty both to our country and to all with whom he worked marked him out as a man of noble quality. He was always the quintessence of courtesy in his dealings with those with whom he disagreed. His five years as Speaker of this House are fresh in our memory. His compassion, his patience, his humour and his strength of character ensured that he will always have an honoured place as one of the greatest Speakers in our history.

    In saluting Selwyn Lloyd’s memory, we thank God for his life of selfless service and extend to his family our heartfelt sympathy in their sorrow.

  • Michael Neubert – 1978 Speech on Litter in London

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Neubert, the then Conservative MP for Romford, in the House of Commons on 16 May 1978.

    Well over 10 million people now come to visit ​ the British Isles each year, many of them to London. About 10 million people live in London, many of them working, as we do, in Westminster. At the centre of our capital city we are surrounded by a wealth of historic buildings and Royal parks, rightly renowned world-wide. Yet all too often the state of our streets is a disgrace. It used to be said that the streets of London were paved with gold. Too often these days too many of the streets of London are paved with plastic ​ bags, empty Coke cans and cigarette packets.

    As a Londoner, with some interest in travel and tourism, especially I regret the adverse impression that this must leave with many visitors to our city. There is one feature to which I particularly object and that is the new established practice of leaving refuse on public pavements and private forecourts for long periods for later collection. This has the effect of detracting very much from the London street scene. Unless it is vigorously resisted and arrested, the appearance of London can only get worse.

    It is not only the fact that we have litter in our streets that causes me concern. That is a more evident problem. At least the strewing of litter is usually thoughtless and inconsiderate, whereas the practice of dumping rubbish on our streets in plastic bags and cardboard boxes is deliberate and becoming more widespread. This process must not be allowed to continue. If it does, the contrast between our noble buildings and our slovenly streets will widen, and the disparity between taxpayers’ money spent on restoring the fabric of our buildings and ratepayers’ money spent on the cleansing of our streets will sharpen. The amenities of living in London will be severely damaged.

    For all these reasons, I seek to raise this issue tonight, in the hope that the process can not only be arrested but reversed. Unfortunately, even this apparently simple point, which I take the opportunity to put to the Minister, is not really as simple and straightforward as it might seem. There are many complex factors involved and it is not possible within the scope of this short debate to include all of them.

    What are the main reasons for this state of affairs? There are three major difficulties facing anyone attempting to maintain high standards of cleanliness in London’s streets: the nature of our historic buildings, the inadequacy of access to older property, and the traffic congestion which inhibits and slows down refuse rounds. These factors in themselves are not peculiar to London.

    There seem to be three other factors which are particularly pertinent to this problem. The first derives from the ​ origins of this practice, namely, the lowering of standards which took place in the 1969 “dirty jobs” strike, which is an illustration of how a strike can do damage that lives on long after the dispute is settled. The outward effects of this dispute were most unfortunate. It led people at that time, of necessity, to deposit their rubbish on the streets. They saw, day after day, rubbish and rotting refuse at their doorstep. They thought nothing of it. It became almost acceptable. Ever since that precedent was established there has not been the same resistance to such a state of affairs which there would otherwise have been and which existed before. In the past nine years or so this trend has been increasing.

    We have then to consider the inadequacy of the present law. Many of these matters are still governed by the provisions of the Public Health Act 1936. It is not surprising that, 42 years later, those provisions are not meeting modern needs. Circumstances have radically changed in so many evident ways and the regulations under that legislation are no longer satisfactory to deal with the problem.

    Let me give one example. “Waste” is defined as being in two categories—either domestic or trade. Hotels and restaurants are not apparently committed to the latter category, and they often enjoy a free service, whereas the demands made on that service by hotels and restaurants are by their nature exceptional and heavy. In the centre of London where we live and work that consideration is especially the case. There is a need to update the legislation, and I shall return to that matter later.

    There is a third thread which is important. In such a service as refuse collection, which is labour intensive, the attitudes of the men working that service will be critical. This will require a constructive and co-operative approach to the problem by trade unionists, members and leaders alike, if the problems, are to be solved, particularly in central London.

    I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the implications of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc. Act. I know that that legislation is not his responsibility, but I think he will agree that he will need to take those provisions into account. The provisions of that Act, if fully carried through, could prove calamitous to refuse collecting services in central London.

    The principles of the legislation are unexceptionable, namely, the wish to ensure healthy and safe conditions for men and women at work. But the detailed provisions of the Act, if carried to the extreme, will prove highly costly and counter-productive in many respects in the service that is being undertaken. It is clear, for example, that any one of a number of objections could be made on present practice to dangerous steps to basements or to high rise buildings, defective back alleyways, low ceilings, inadequate lighting, ice and frost on stairs, rotting refuse, rodents, and broken handrails. Any one of those reasons could be taken by an eager beaver union representative, eager to make his mark, as an objection to carrying out the collection. If carried to extremes, it is clear that the practice of kerbside collections, so far from diminishing, will increase. Therefore, we have all these factors in the background.

    What needs to be done? First, a higher priority must be accorded to this Cinderella service. Attitudes to refuse collection have always been gently derisory, and probably always will be, but the service is the very essence of our standard of living. Amenities play a very important part in that standard of living. Living standards depend not just on the size of the cigar or on the cubic capacity of the next new car, or even on holidays in Spain. Standards of living depend on humdrum, everyday events which all too often we take for granted. I refer to the twice-daily delivery of post, the daily delivery of a pint of milk, and, of course, the regular cleansing of our streets and the collection of refuse.
    Greater priority must be given within local council budgets to this service. I pay tribute to the work that has been done in the face of enormous difficulties by the directors of cleansing in the three central London authorities which I have consulted. I refer to the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the City Corporation.

    Nothing in my remarks should be taken to disparage the work they are doing or the policy of their authorities. But it is clear from figures given to me of expenditure on the service in the past four years that, although expenditure has increased substantially in cash terms, in real terms it has shown a cut-back. ​ Although some of that may be due to special circumstances, or even perhaps to greater efficiency and achieving the same amount of work at smaller cost, I suspect that in a period of economic restraint inevitably this service has suffered, and it is all too easy for it to suffer.

    I should like to see a recording of priorities not only by the councils themselves but by the Department, too. I make the point to the Minister that, as local government nowadays is so much Government-directed, he, too, might play some part in reordering priorities in this matter. Although humdrum, commonplace, everyday and taken for granted, this service is vital to the well being of our community, and especially in central London.

    Second, and specifically, I draw attention to the fact that, four years after the passing of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, there remain outstanding provisions in Part I still to be implemented. It is regrettable that after this lapse of time they should remain unimplemented. The Act itself was a successor to the Protection of the Environment Bill introduced by the last Conservative Government, which fell at the time of the General Election early in 1974, and it is now time to consider early implementation of its outstanding provisions.

    Those provisions would allow powers to councils to ensure that there were adequate facilities for the storage of refuse and its eventual disposal and that there were adequate facilities for the disposal of waste. In addition, the councils could levy charges, in particular on hotels and restaurants, which are the principal, though not the only, offenders.

    Here is an example of how the present system works to the disadvantage of London. There is a small hotel in South Kensington which enjoys twice-weekly free service from the Royal borough, and it does so by means of an accumulation of bags of refuse which, during the course of the week, can total 500. There is a considerable amount of refuse, and there can be 250 bags at any given time, stacked neatly on the hotel’s own ground but none the less an eyesore to those who pass down that side street on their way to the hotel or going about their business or pleasure in London.

    If a charge were levied, it could provide revenue for a self-financing ​ scheme, or the potential ability to apply a charge could be used as a deterrent to encourage such hotels and commercial enterprises to invest in compaction equipment which could reduce the volume of such rubbish by a ratio of four to one, thereby making better use of their own space and also removing some of the worst eyesores when rubbish overflows on to forecourts and pavements. In that way, a great deal could be done.

    I call on the Minister tonight to bring about early implementation of those provisions. Although he is not directly responsible for the service, he has a vital role to play because only he can bring in the full implementation of Part I of the Act, and only he can effectively co-ordinate a campaign to improve the appearance of London. He must show a determination not to tolerate a lowering of standards in our capital city. I hope that he will take that opportunity tonight.

  • David Owen – 1978 Statement on Zaire

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Owen, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 16 May 1978.

    The Government are making every effort, through the British Embassy in Kinshasa and other Western countries with communities in Shaba province to ensure the safety of the British community in the area of the fighting. The total number of British and Commonwealth citizens in the Shaba province—the area affected—is believed to be 171. We are in close touch with the mining companies, who employ a number of British subjects. The town of Kolwezi, where there are 24 British and Commonwealth citizens, is ​ reported to have been taken by the invading force. We have, so far, had no reports of harm to British subjects. The mining town of Tenke-Fungurume, east of Kolwezi, could be affected. Of the 19 British subjects there, six dependants were flown by their company to Kinshasa yesterday and other dependants are being flown today to Zambia.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed this question in detail with President Kaunda yesterday. The President has assured us that Zambia will give every facility to British subjects evacuated from Shaba province.
    This is a serious and threatening development to the stability of this part of Africa. I will keep the House closely informed and make all possible information available to the relatives of those concerned.

  • Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on Prime Minister’s Funding Announcement

    Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on Prime Minister’s Funding Announcement

    Below is a press release issued by the Department for International Development on 06/03/2020.

    The global race to find a vaccine for coronavirus will be bolstered by support announced by the Prime Minister today, funded by the UK’s international development budget.

    Supported by UK funding, eight possible coronavirus vaccines are currently under development and efforts are being made to get any viable vaccines from sequencing of the virus to clinical testing in under a year – a record timeframe. Governments around the world could then work with pharmaceutical companies to get vaccines into production and use. Today’s additional support will bring the UK’s investment into COVID-19 research to £65 million.

    UK experts are leading the scientific and medical response to the global coronavirus outbreak and the UK was one of the first countries to establish a laboratory test for the virus. However, no country has yet found a method of diagnosing coronavirus without sending samples to a lab for testing – a process that can take several days.

    Today the Prime Minister visited Mologic lab in Bedfordshire which is using UK aid funding to develop rapid diagnostic test devices for coronavirus to allow medical professionals or potentially even individuals at home to identify the disease quickly without relying on specialist facilities. This will mean patients can be treated more quickly, reducing the risk of them passing the virus onto others and helping them to recover quickly. The lab is building on extensive experience creating similar tests for other infections.

    Efforts to develop a diagnostic test form part of the Government’s work to limit the spread of the virus, investing in and informed by scientific research.

    A rapid diagnostic test can also be used by countries around the world that are not currently able to diagnose the virus at all. Low-income countries without the medical infrastructure to conduct laboratory tests or who do not have access to the necessary reagents are not able to differentiate coronavirus from other common causes of fever such as other bacterial, viral and parasitic infections.

    The majority of cases in those countries are therefore going unchecked, increasing the risk of the virus spreading both locally and around the world. To ensure access to the technology, the test will therefore be jointly manufactured in the UK and Senegal — the first time a diagnostic has been produced in the continent, supported by UK aid funding.

    Today’s announcement builds on the plan set out by the Prime Minister earlier this week to tackle coronavirus in the UK. The Government is doing everything possible, based on the advice of world-leading scientific experts, to prepare for all eventualities. This plan has four strands – containing the virus, delaying its spread, researching its origins and cure, and mitigating the impact should the virus become more widespread.

    Today’s funding package, which includes support for the World Health Organization’s Flash Appeal, will also help vulnerable countries prepare for the spread of the disease in other ways.

    UK-funded infectious disease experts are working in developing countries which have large urban populations and transport links to the UK and to China and other countries experiencing large outbreaks. Experts will support countries to prepare for and respond to suspected cases, for example by creating effective isolation zones.

    International efforts are being coordinated by a new UK Government Coronavirus International Taskforce, bringing together expertise from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    Coronavirus is the biggest threat in countries whose healthcare systems are unable to cope with large outbreaks. Ensuring those countries have mechanisms in place will prevent a surge of cases which would also present risks to us at home.

    Today’s announcement brings the UK’s total support to fight the virus internationally to £91 million.

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson said:

    Keeping the British people safe is my number one priority, and that’s why I’ve set out our four-part plan to contain, delay, mitigate and research coronavirus.

    We are ensuring the country is prepared for the current outbreak, guided by the science at every stage. But we also need to invest now in researching the vaccines that could help prevent future outbreaks.

    I’m very proud that UK experts – backed by government funding – are on the front line of global efforts to do just that.

    International Development Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:

    The UK is well-prepared to respond to potential cases of coronavirus at home, but a global response is needed to effectively combat the disease.

    We are investing UK aid and using the best of British expertise and science to find new ways to vaccinate against, treat and diagnose the virus, and to support global efforts to prevent further outbreaks around the world.

    Every action that we take to prevent the virus spreading makes the UK safer.

    Government Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance said:

    Rapid testing is going to be key to managing this outbreak, but ultimately vaccines are going to provide the long-term protection we need.

    The UK has some of the world’s leading scientists and this money will help in our fight to tackle this new disease.

    Director-General of the World Health Organization Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

    The United Kingdom’s support for the global response to the new coronavirus outbreak will protect the health of people in many parts of the world, from assisting countries with fragile health systems to fuelling the fight to find a vaccine.

    At this critical time in the battle against COVID-19, the WHO is grateful for the UK’s solidarity and commitment to keeping people safe at home and around the world.

    It comes ahead of the UK hosting the “Global Vaccine Summit 2020” in June, demonstrating the UK’s leadership in global health security.

  • Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on Supporting Poorest Countries with Coronavirus

    Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on Supporting Poorest Countries with Coronavirus

    Below is a press release issued by the Department for International Development on 11/03/2020.

    Up to £150 million of UK aid funding announced in the Budget to help mitigate the impact of coronavirus on the world’s most vulnerable countries.

    Vulnerable countries will be better protected from the economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 outbreak thanks to support announced by the Chancellor Rishi Sunak in today’s budget.

    Up to £150 million of new UK aid will go to the International Monetary Fund’s Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust (CCRT) to help developing countries deal with the short term economic disruption caused by coronavirus, allowing them to focus their spending on tackling the outbreak.

    Countries will receive support if they experience a severe decline in national income or falling government revenues as a result of coronavirus. This will help lessen economic disruption, particularly where vulnerable countries might otherwise default on debt repayments and trigger further economic impacts.

    COVID-19 has already had a major impact on oil prices and global stock markets in recent weeks. The IMF fund is designed to lessen the disease’s future global economic impact, which will also safeguard the UK economy.

    International Development Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:

    The UK is yet again playing a crucial role delivering greater stability in the face of crisis. We are determined to lessen the economic effect of the coronavirus outbreak on developing countries, which in turn will reduce its global impact.

    This support will make a very real difference to those countries which are most vulnerable to coronavirus. It will allow them to focus on battling this outbreak, which should be every country’s first priority.

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak when delivering the budget today said:

    The Governor of the Bank of England and I are in close contact with our counterparts, around the world, in the G7 and the G20.

    And to support the global response, I’m also making new funding of £150m available for the IMF’s relief efforts.

    The International Monetary Fund set up the CCRT in 2015 to cope with economic shocks caused by natural disasters or public health emergencies. It successfully helped Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea respond to the Ebola crisis in 2015. The UK was the first country to support this fund and is historically one of its largest contributors.

    UK aid is already at the centre of the coronavirus response. Since the outbreak began £91 million of has been invested in the research of vaccines and diagnostic tests, and in supporting the World Health Organization and developing countries to prevent the virus spreading around the world. Today’s announcement brings the UK’s total commitment to the international coronavirus response to up to £241 million.

  • Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on RAF Aid Delivery to Turkey

    Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on RAF Aid Delivery to Turkey

    Below is a press release issued by the Department for International Development on 12/03/2020.

    Vital humanitarian aid will provide much-needed relief amid worsening humanitarian crisis in Idlib.

    The UK Government has delivered vital humanitarian aid to the Turkey-Syria border, which will provide much-needed relief and protection for Syrians amid the worsening humanitarian crisis in Idlib.

    An RAF C-17 carrying 37 tonnes of UK aid landed in Hatay, Turkey, yesterday afternoon. The supplies on board include tents to provide life-saving shelter, hygiene kits, blankets, water purification tablets, cooking equipment and lanterns for around 300 families who have been forced to flee their homes and seek safety in harsh conditions.

    This comes as schools, nurseries and hospitals are targeted by Syrian regime bombing.

    The aid flight is in addition to £89 million of UK aid for Syria – announced last week – to help protect victims of violence, which included tents, thermal blankets, clothing, food, clean water and medical supplies, among other measures.

    The aid supplies are being distributed in the worst affected areas including Idlib in north west Syria, with the cooperation of the Turkish Red Crescent.

    It comes as Defence Secretary Ben Wallace visited Ankara today to hold talks with his Turkish counterpart, Hulusi Akar, to discuss how the UK can further support Turkey, and those Syrians in desperate need. This follows the Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab’s meeting with his Turkish counterparts in Ankara last week to discuss the continuing violence in Syria and the UK’s support to the crisis.

    Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

    The people of Idlib have suffered enormously during this conflict and these crucial supplies delivered by our military will provide shelter for hundreds of families in desperate need.

    We stand in solidarity with Turkey after the losses they have suffered, and the UK will do what we can to offer support.

    For the sake of both nations, the wider region and security across the entire globe, the ceasefire in Idlib must continue to be respected.

    International Development Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:

    It is a tragedy that almost a million people – mostly women and children – have been forced to flee their homes in the past 100 days as the ruthless Assad regime and its Russian backers relentlessly bombed their homes and killed their families.

    Too many innocent people are struggling to survive in freezing conditions without a roof over their head.

    Through UK aid, delivered by our world-class troops, the British people are helping to save lives, boost regional security and stop the cruel suffering of defenceless Syrians in this warzone.

    The UK is one of the largest bilateral donors to the Syria crisis, providing more than £3.1 billion to trusted partners in Syria and the region since 2011. From day one, we have been at the forefront of the humanitarian response providing more than 28 million food rations, 19 million medical check-ups and 12 million vaccines across Syria and the region.

    The UK has also helped more than 140,000 people to get clean drinking water and provided psychosocial support to almost 28,000 people, including over 1,000 children.

    Turkey is the largest refugee hosting country in the world. Working with our European partners, the UK has helped to support the education of more than 635,000 Syrian refugee children in Turkey and provided over 8 million primary healthcare consultations for the most vulnerable Syrian refugees to help alleviate pressure on Turkish communities and maintain regional security.

    During his visit to the country, Mr Wallace will also meet other members of the Turkish government and lay a wreath at the Anitkabir Mausoleum, paying his respects to the founder of The Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

  • Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on Tackling Global Fake News on Coronavirus

    Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on Tackling Global Fake News on Coronavirus

    Below is a press release issued by the Department for International Development on 12/03/2020.

    UK aid will fund new international push to challenge dangerous fake news about coronavirus.

    Dangerous myths about coronavirus which are hampering the global fight against the disease will be challenged thanks to a new initiative backed by UK aid.

    The support from the Department for International Development will challenge misinformation in South East Asia and Africa, which is then spreading worldwide, and direct people to the right advice to help stop the spread of the virus.

    False claims and conspiracy theories have spread rapidly on social media, touting ‘cures’ like drinking bleach or rubbing mustard and garlic into your skin. These pose a serious risk to health and can speed up the spread of the virus, by stopping people taking simple practical, preventative steps like washing their hands.

    DFID’s £500,000 support will go to the Humanitarian-to-Humanitarian (H2H) Network, which has extensive experience addressing the spread of misinformation during epidemics, for example following the 2015 Ebola outbreak.

    The work of the H2H Network will complement UK initiatives by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the NHS to tackle misinformation online.

    International Development Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:

    Misinformation harms us all. By tackling it at source we will help stop the spread of fake news – and coronavirus – worldwide, including within the UK.

    H2H will work with partners BBC Media Action and Internews to create verified information in various languages to tackle specific mistruths spreading in South East Asia and Africa. Their work will also support journalists in these regions to write more accurately about the virus using information from the World Health Organization.

    Support will also go to Translators without Borders, which monitors false information in various languages and translates validated content from WHO and other health agencies, and Evidence Aid which updates a database of research on diseases each day.

    The initiative will analyse social media and online content to identify where the misinformation is coming from and how it is spreading – so victims of fake news can be sent the correct information and directed to official health advice.

    H2H will also work with social media influencers – vloggers and bloggers – to help spread accurate health information and reach younger online audiences that are more susceptible to fake news.

    Some of the social media influencers being engaged include:

    Bianca Gonzalez, a health expert and YouTube vlogger from the Philippines with over 7 million followers on Twitter @iamsuperbianca

    Dr Jahangir Kabir, a Bangladeshi health expert and popular TV presenter with over 1 million Facebook followers @DrJahangirkabircmc

    @KlikDokter – An Indonesian health blog with over 4 million Facebook followers

    Some of the more damaging mistruths being targeted include:

    ‘Miracle cures’ for the virus, such as drinking chlorine dioxide, an industrial bleach, or urine, eating garlic, gargling saltwater or spreading cow dung and mustard paste. In Myanmar, news websites have reported false claims supposedly from health officials, advising people to sleep next to chopped onions claiming this will “absorb the virus” or to drink ginger juice. It is also falsely claimed you cannot catch coronavirus if you have a mosquito bite. Scammers pretending to be health officials in Myanmar have been selling black pepper seeds as a cure.

    Undermining health officials: In Tanzania, people have received a WhatsApp message claiming to be from the health ministry and telling them drinking warm water every few minutes will prevent infection. The exact same message has also appeared in French throughout West Africa, claiming to be from the Canadian Health Ministry. Messages like this are undermining the efforts of real health officials to contain the virus, damaging trust in official advice and confusing people.

    Promoting violence: Rumours that the virus was created or spread deliberately have already led to reported attacks on Chinese nationals across South East Asia as well as in the UK. A video claiming to show Chinese officials shooting coronavirus victims and alleging tens of thousands were executed went viral on social media sites worldwide, after the celebrity sister of a prominent Bollywood actor in India shared them. The video was in fact edited from four completely unrelated clips, including one of Chinese police shooting a rabid dog.

    Public Health England is regularly updating its advice on coronavirus, including how people can help stop the spread of infection. Individuals are also being advised to call NHS 111 or contact the NHS dedicated 111 online coronavirus service if they are concerned about any symptoms or any contact they may have had with someone who might be infected.

  • Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on Global Hand-washing Campaign

    Department for International Development – 2020 Press Release on Global Hand-washing Campaign

    Below is a press release issued by the Department for International Development on 26/03/2020.

    New £100 million campaign to reach up to a billion people globally will help stop the spread of coronavirus.

    The UK government is working with Unilever to fund a global programme to urgently tackle the spread of coronavirus.

    The programme will reach up to a billion people worldwide, raising awareness and changing behaviour, to make sure people are washing their hands with soap regularly and disinfecting surfaces.

    It is backed by funding of up to £50 million each from both the Department for International Development and Unilever. The programme will also provide over 20 million hygiene products in the developing world, including in areas where there is little or no sanitation.

    Such support is vital to stop the spread of the disease in the developing world and will also limit its further potential spread in the UK. Tackling the disease in developing countries will also reduce its potential future impact on the global economy and travel.

    Over half a billion pounds of aid from the UK government is already being used to help slow the spread of the virus in developing countries. This includes support for research into vaccines and tests, as well as humanitarian support for developing countries.

    International Development Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said:

    Health experts have said washing your hands regularly and staying away from other people are the most effective ways to stop this virus from spreading and to save lives.

    Many people in the poorest countries lack access to basic handwashing products, such as soap, or are not aware of the urgent need to change their behaviour. The UK Government’s partnership with Unilever, will make a real difference, helping to protect both developing countries and the UK from further infections.

    The mass awareness campaign will run across TV, radio and print, social and digital media to help change people’s behaviour in countries across Africa and Asia, like Kenya, Ghana and Bangladesh. Messages will be tailored to communities in these countries to ensure they are effective.

    The initiative will be led by Unilever’s hygiene brands Domestos bleach and Lifebuoy soap, which have been driving large scale hygiene behaviour change programmes for decades.

    The announcement builds on a series of actions announced by Unilever in recent days to tackle the coronavirus outbreak globally. The company employs over 6,000 people in the UK.

    Unilever CEO, Alan Jope, said:

    Lifebuoy and Domestos have a proven track record of running hygiene awareness and education programmes successfully, and we hope that the work we will be able to drive jointly with UK aid will help save lives that could otherwise be impacted by coronavirus.

    As the world’s biggest soap company, we have a responsibility to help make soap and hygiene products more readily available, and to use our expertise to teach people to wash their hands effectively, whichever brand they choose to use.

    The initiative will support British and international NGOs and other partners to run programmes to tackle the spread of coronavirus, through increasing access to hygiene products; a mass public awareness campaign on the importance of handwashing; and a hygiene behaviour change programme. It will also harness the expertise of leading academics, including from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine to analyse and ensure the programme is targeted where it has the biggest impact.

    DFID and Unilever will work closely with partners to curb the spread of coronavirus in vulnerable countries with poor health systems, saving lives in the process.