Groceries Code Adjudicator

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale, and to follow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), who made a very good contribution to the debate. I will not go into the details, because the hon. Gentleman has summarised where we are today and the history of the call from across the House and the parties for an ombudsman—I will use that term, because it is appropriate. I am the hon. Member who promoted a private Member's Bill on a grocery market ombudsman, which had all-party support in the previous Parliament. Importantly, the Bill received not only cross-party support but support from across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The promoters of the Bill brought to the debate deep knowledge of different parts of the industry and of the United Kingdom. From the outset, it is important to say, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has done, that I support supermarkets. However, I also support suppliers and consumers, and it was in the spirit of fairness that I sponsored the Bill in the previous Parliament. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for his work on the issue over a long period. As the able chair of the grocery market action group, he brought together a big coalition including not only the farming unions, which were prominent with their calls for fairness on dairy and other produce, but non-governmental organisations, which are important in fair trade issues in this country and throughout the world, community groups and consumer groups, including the Women's Institute. No politician, including the Minister, can ignore the WI, which was a member of that broad coalition of supporters of an ombudsman. Another member was the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents the small shops that bear the brunt of the situation. The power of the supermarkets was deemed too much, not by politicians but by a proper inquiry by the Competition Commission. Its recommendations in the 2008 report called for a new code, because the existing voluntary code was not working. The new code came into effect in 2010, but it needs a referee—an adjudicator or ombudsman—to ensure that it stands credibly for the fairness that we all want. I pay tribute to all the other parties as well. When I set off on the track of the private Member's Bill, what the parties stood for on an ombudsman was a grey area. When my party was in government, I remember approaching Conservative Front-Benchers, who said, ““Well, we are not really sure how this will work in practice,”” but all of a sudden there was great movement and strong lobbying with an election in view. It was exactly the same in my party—I am not making a partisan point; I am giving the details. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was 100% supportive of the Bill, but the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was less supportive. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they used different words, but they said exactly the same thing. They wanted an ombudsman, and at one time there was a proposal to introduce a food standards ombudsman. They wanted the fairness that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has discussed. We have moved a long way. My Bill received a Second Reading. There were some strong arguments against it, and I pay credit to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for his consistency. I respect his standpoint, and it was good to have the debate. The Bill went into Committee, but it did not make the wash-up, although the issue made it into all the manifestos, which is important. All the major parties went into the general election calling for an ombudsman with real teeth to enforce the code of practice for the grocery market. The previous Government conducted a consultation from February 2010 to April 2010. When the coalition Government were formed, they made their commitment clear at the start, and they followed through on the consultation. When the executive summary was published, the Minister was gracious enough to give me a copy of it and a copy of the Government response, which was thorough in its conclusions as well as in its overview. There was, rightly, a commitment in the coalition agreement to introduce an ombudsman adjudicator at the first possible opportunity, and I remind hon. Members that during the general election the introduction of an adjudicator was a priority for the major parties. A priority should go into the first Queen's Speech after an election, and that is what should have happened, but the issue drifted. I want the Minister to explain why the issue is so difficult. It has cross-party support and consensus, and a broad coalition of groups outside the House supports it. A priority issue should go ahead quickly. The Government's response was positive in many ways. I have referred to ““the ombudsman””, but I was lobbied by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association, which said that it did not want the word to be used. Fair enough, we can live with a different title, and adjudicator or enforcer would be adequate. I am comfortable that that post will be housed with the Office for Fair Trading, because that is sensible and will keep costs down as long as it does not interfere with the OFT's consumer work. However, it must be independent of the Government and the OFT, if it is to do its job properly, which we all want. Time is moving on, and there is talk of a draft Bill. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has said, the draft Bill was to be published before Easter, but now it will be published after Easter. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be another Queen's Speech before it can make progress through the House? I think that it will make progress, but time is moving on. The group to which I have referred still wants an ombudsman. The farming unions, consumers and fair traders want an ombudsman to ensure that the code of practice is adhered to. We are fast approaching the second anniversary of the code coming into being following the Competition Commission's report. Cynics will say that if a gap is left, the supermarkets will behave for a period. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has said, they will use the code as a badge of honour, and people will question whether an ombudsman or adjudicator is needed. It is not only cynics who think that, because concerned farmers, businesses and suppliers have written to me to express their worry that the coalition Government have lost interest in the matter. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that. Let us remind ourselves why an ombudsman is needed. The Competition Commission's inquiry and report in 2008 contained clear recommendations. There was a long period of consultation under the previous and current Governments, but we are now seeing long-grass politics. It is no longer a priority, and it has been kicked into the long grass. I know that the Government are faced with big issues, but every new Government face issues that are not of their making, and they must deal with them. When a political party forms a Government saying that it has a priority to introduce something, it should do so as soon as possible. I want a proactive and independent adjudicator to look at the entire grocery market and to provide safeguards and protection for small companies. If those companies do not want to be named, they should be allowed anonymity, so that they can take their complaint forward positively. I want the ombudsman to be able to levy penalties for abuse of the code. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) has said—he is no longer in his place—the ombudsman or adjudicator must have teeth. We are already 12 months into the new Parliament, and I am worried about the Bill's slippage. I would like to see a draft Bill as soon as possible. I will not detain the Chamber by going over the arguments that I have summarised, but I hope that the Minister will tell us today a specific date for the draft Bill, although I do not understand why it needs to be in draft form. During previous Parliaments while I have been a Member of the House, I have wanted draft legislation on difficult issues, but the matter before us has been debated to death and there is near consensus. I do not understand the need for draft legislation. The Bill could have been introduced with the good will of the political parties, all of which included the issue in their manifestos. There has been proper consultation, and everyone has had the opportunity to be consulted and to put their views. I hope that the adjudicator that the Minister has talked about will come into being very soon, that we achieve the fairness that everyone wants, that we obtain a grocery market that we can all be proud of, that each and every part of the grocery market is included in the code and that the adjudicator has the licence and the teeth to ensure that there are no abuses. I hope that we can move forward on that. This has been a good debate. There is consensus, so let us retain that consensus. As the hon. Member for St Ives has said, we are all pushing in the same direction, but we must push the Minister a little harder so that his Department delivers the adjudicator.