Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Cameron of Dillington (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 March 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].


Public Bodies Bill [HL]

My Lords, I support this series of amendments. It is a pleasure to be speaking on this Bill in the early hours of the evening rather than in the early hours of the morning. All three political parties have committed themselves to putting in place a groceries code adjudicator, and this seems to be a golden opportunity to do so. It would make the Government popular with farmers, consumers and at least three of the supermarkets, which have agreed the appointment of such a person or body if it was to apply across the board. Some of the free marketeers among you might question why an ombudsman figure is necessary in an open and free marketplace. You might say: surely in a free market where there is more than one buyer, the seller can go elsewhere. However, that equal balance of interest implied in the phrase ““willing buyer, willing seller”” simply does not exist where the buyers are so big and the sellers are so small. More importantly, that balance of interest does not exist when the seller and supplier has to plan his or her cropping as much as 18 months in advance, within probably a five-year rotation, and organise the acreage by the seed, the fertiliser and the spray, often with the seed variety and the treatment being specified in detail by the particular buyer. The farmer has to have his whole farm often audited and inspected by the particular buyer. Without this audited inspection he cannot sell his crop, or the buyer will not buy it. Furthermore, each buyer or supermarket has a different auditing system in place, so the farmer cannot easily change the buyer; certainly not without a long notice period. The farmer also may have to invest in specified capital and machinery. All this takes place 18 months to a year before the crop is sold and before a price is agreed. Unfortunately there is ample room for the big boy to manipulate the sale to their advantage when the little man has nowhere else to go when the buyer’s terms or the buyer’s price turn against him. If the farming venture has involved borrowing the large sums of capital for irrigation, for cold stores or for processing and the like, the smallholder farmer probably has nowhere else to go for the next year either. The supermarkets may claim that an adjudicator is not necessary. In that case, there is no danger to them or to the consumer if one is put in place. In my view, it will be a great insurance policy for the farmer—and for the consumer—if one is put in place. Therefore, I urge all three parties to use this opportunity to fulfil their election promises. It is crucial for the future of UK agriculture and the fair balance that we need to achieve.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
725 c1645-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Conditions of employment Codes of practice Devolved matters Consumers Accountability BBC Banks Competition British Waterways Competition Commission Fertility Freedom of information Human rights Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Inland waterways Legislation IVF Forestry Commission Forests Ministerial powers Northern Ireland Navigation Public bodies Railways Mergers Parliamentary scrutiny Passengers Staff Office of Fair Trading Non-departmental public bodies Scotland Regulation Wales Welsh language Shipping Research Supermarkets Television Stem cells S4C Human Tissue Authority Passenger Focus Legal Services Board Care Quality Commission Independent Commission on Banking
Legislation
Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk