The NFU has described the government’s response to the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee report on the Draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill as "inexplicable." The union has accused the government of ignoring the recommendations of key committees and stakeholders involved in the process.  image expired

The NFU said that, despite having committed its draft Bill for scrutiny by MPs, the government has now chosen to ignore the key recommendations made by two parliamentary committees as well as the union itself and other stakeholder organisations. It believes the government’s decision not to heed some of the recommendations, which would give the adjudicator more power, will render the post unfit for purpose when it is eventually established.

In July, following an inquiry into the draft Bill which included evidence provided by the Efra committee, which held its own separate inquiry, the Business, Innovation and Skills (Bis) Committee published its findings. At the time, the NFU welcomed the work carried out by both bodies. The two called for an adjudicator to police the Groceries Supply Code of Practice, and made a number of recommendations for the Bill to be improved.

However, in a decision that has rendered the new post almost toothless in the opinion of the suppliers it is intended to represent, the Government has rejected recommendations that, when deciding whether to launch an investigation, the adjudicator should have access to evidence from a wide range of sources, including representative bodies including the NFU, and remained non-committal on using evidence from whistle blowers, which the union stressed are of utmost importance.  

Furthermore, the government dropped the proposal that the adjudicator should have powers to fine retailers who breach the groceries code. The power will instead be kept as a reserve, as the government believes the presence of the adjudicator, which will be able to investigate claims and ‘name and shame’ supermarkets which do not comply with the code, will be incentive enough.

NFU President Peter Kendall has reacted strongly to the news, which he believes is the result of powerful industry lobbying on behalf of the retailers. He condemned the government’s decision as unpopular; "The government chose to publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, so that MPs would be able to give their considered judgement on what form the final Bill should take. Having done so, it has now chosen to ignore the most significant recommendations of those MPs, rendering the pre-legislative process an irrelevant diversion.

"Frankly, at a time when retailers are engaging in another round of aggressive price cutting, it is more important than ever that we ensure they play fair with their suppliers, so that they can continue to invest and innovate for the benefit of both consumers and food producers. Sadly, as things stand the adjudicator will be badly hampered in its ability to do so, making it unfit for purpose."

Mr Kendall expressed particular outrage at the decision to strip the ombudsperson of their punitive powers, "The role whistle-blowers within retailers can play in supplying evidence of breaches and giving the adjudicator the ability to fine retailers where it identifies breaches of the code are vital to ensuring the code has real teeth. These recommendations have not been accepted by BIS which is a real kick in the teeth."

Kendall has called for the formal Bill to be brought forward to the current parliamentary session to expedite the creation of a fair adjudicator. He also commented that it is "hard not to detect the dead hand of the retailers at play behind the government’s reticence to establish an effective regime to police the groceries code."