Supermarket suppliers and their representatives have voiced their mixed reactions to the Competition Commission’s final report out this week.
National Farmers’ Union (NFU) chief horticulture adviser Phil Hudson said he saw the report as “very good” news. He said: “Most of what we have been looking for is within the report, including the introduction of an ombudsman. We see it as a step forward and, although the devil will be in the detail, we are very pleased.”
His comments were echoed by NFU president Peter Kendall. “We are pleased that, after such an exhaustive investigation, the commission has supported our long-held view that the food retail chain is not functioning as it should and, if left unchecked, could have an adverse effect on consumers,” he said.
“A strengthened mandatory code of practice backed by a proactive ombudsman, which the NFU recommended, is exactly what is required to help develop a framework of improved transparency and fairness in the food supply chain.
“It is in everyone’s interests that the food supply chain is transparent and profitable, so that farmers and growers are able to supply the quality and choice that consumers expect and deserve,” he added.
However, Fresh Produce Consortium ceo Nigel Jenney was cautious in his assessment. “The report suggests that there are good relationships between buyers and sellers, but its recommendations for written terms and conditions and an independent ombudsman would provide a clearer fallback position where these do not exist,” he said.
But the recommendation for an ombudsman has not been welcomed across the board. Some say that it is being introduced to appease farmers and growers, but that it will not work. John Smith of Greyfriars, a Yorkshire-based supermarket supplier, said: “The commission might be well meaning, but I cannot see that an ombudsman or anyone else should be interposed in the relationship between a supplier and a supermarket, especially not a civil servant. It will be unworkable, costly, cumbersome and unnecessary. I can see that it is something that might sound good, but it will only end in tears for the taxpayer.”
Another supplier commented on the requirement for written terms and conditions. “Frankly, if a supermarket writes to you and tells you that you will be de-listed in six months and you had 70 per cent of your business with that supermarket, what good is that to you?” he said.
One UK-based supplier slammed the notion of the watchdog as wholly unrealistic. “Say you have a complaint against one of the major multiples, you moan to the ombudsman, who finds in your favour and you get £50,000 compensation,” said the supplier. “You might have won the battle, but I can’t see a way your customer won’t know who you are. You will be seen as a troublemaker, and you will lose the war.”
No comments yet