Tesco crisis: A watchdog with no teeth is no use at all
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Outlook As the Tesco scandal sees gruesome details emerge of the oft-antagonistic relationship between big grocers and their suppliers, perhaps now is the time to reassess the last round of legislation on the industry.
The Competition Commission, when it probed the supermarkets after receiving floods of complaints about their behaviour, recommended in 2008 that the grocers set up and fund a powerful independent ombudsman to keep the peace. But the big retailers refused to countenance such a beast.
In the face of that inaction, the government passed legislation to set up an alternative instead. That sounds great, but the watchdog the suppliers got was only an “adjudicator”, not an “ombudsman.” Many suppliers say its powers are watered down. Thanks largely to the retailers’ sustained protests, it only got launched last summer – a full five years since the Commission’s recommendations. The recent annual accounts do not bode particularly well.
For example: how many staff do you think this watchdog might have to take on this £175bn-a-year market? Fifty? Sixty? Er… five. Three of whom, including the adjudicator herself, are part-timers.
How big is its baddie-busting budget? £450,000 a year.
And here’s the acid test: how many investigations have its crack team launched so far? None. And how many adjudications from this Groceries Code Adjudicator? None, although it has had two requests.
I wondered if these accounts, being for the year to March, might be out of date. So I phoned to see how things had progressed. One of the two full-timers picked up. Her answers: no, still no investigations, nope, still no adjudications and, er... yes, still only two requests. Busy summer, then? I asked. Yes, it has been busy, actually, but we can’t act unless we’re given evidence, she tells me.
And here’s the rub. None of this is their fault. Even if they had the resources, which they clearly don’t, thanks to the legislation that spawned their organisation, they lack the muscle to do the kind of spot checks that, say, the Financial Conduct Authority does. Instead, they have to wait until a supplier lodges a complaint. But suppliers are terrified of the supermarkets, and are reluctant to complain, even anonymously, for fear of losing business.
Unless we can give it teeth, and more cash, perhaps we should take this watchdog back and get a new one before the guarantee runs out.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments