Post Office Mediation Scheme

Debate between Albert Owen and Jo Swinson

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jo Swinson]

I will finish the point, if hon. Members will allow me.

The hon. Member for North Durham said “do something”, and in such a situation what I would normally propose doing is to get a team of forensic accountants to go through every scenario and to have the report looked at by someone independent, such as a former Court of Appeal judge. We have a system in place to look at cases therefore, but if particular cases can be mediated, that is an ideal solution. If any information comes to light during the course of the mediation or the investigations, that suggests that any of the convictions that have taken place are unsafe, there is a legal duty for that information to be disclosed to the individuals convicted and to their legal representation. I fail to see how action can be taken without properly looking in detail at every single one of the cases through exactly the kind of scheme that we have set up.

[Albert Owen]

I understand the difficulty of getting involved in the mediation, but will the Minister tell senior managers of the Post Office that they need to look at some of the specific accusations made against their staff of giving certain information to people who have ended up in court and in jail?

[Jo Swinson]

Absolutely. That is a serious accusation, and many serious issues have been raised in the debate and in correspondence that Post Office Ltd needs to look at and to respond to, perhaps to reassure itself that such things did not occur, or to look into whether they were the case and, if so, to take appropriate action. We do not for a second take lightly the issues raised today, but I caution against the expectation of some swift and easy magic solution. We have to look at the details and the facts, and that has to be done forensically. That is why Second Sight, the team of forensic accountants, has been employed and why we have someone of the calibre of Sir Anthony Hooper to oversee the process.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between Albert Owen and Jo Swinson

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

It was a man in a dog suit, rather than an actual dog. The event was organised by Traidcraft, ActionAid and War on Want to highlight their message that they want the groceries code adjudicator to be a watchdog with teeth. To further press the point, they left me with my own watchdog, which has brightened up by ministerial office. I assure the House that I have declared the gift appropriately. I appreciate that the decision not to have immediate fines will be disappointing to some supplier and campaign groups, but the dog remains on my office shelf as a reminder that, should we find that stronger sanctions are needed, the Secretary of State will be able to bring in fines quickly. I assure the House that we will have no hesitation in doing so if they are needed.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jo Swinson]

I am coming to a conclusion, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand it if I do not give way.

I greatly value the role that campaigners up and down the country have played to ensure that pressure was kept up to deliver a groceries code adjudicator. I particularly acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives and the Grocery Market Action Group and that of many Members of all parties in championing the issue.

We ultimately want the same thing: for the adjudicator to be as effective as possible. The Bill helps deliver a grocery sector in which suppliers and retailers can deal fairly and openly with one another to provide real benefits for consumers, business and the UK economy. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman is a supporter of pre-legislative scrutiny, but he does not believe it delays Bills for two and a half years. The Government have not had a heavy work load on Bills. If we compare the number of legislative days in the House with the number in other Parliaments, we see that the Government have had a lot of time to introduce the Bill. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I want to move on to whether we should have a fine or naming and shaming.

The only difference between the Government and the Opposition is on whether we have adequate sanctions for the big 10 supermarkets. Has the Minister or the Government considered not only the big 10, but the major suppliers in the chain, which are as big as the supermarkets? Will the adjudicator have the ability to name and shame them? That is important. Some of the major suppliers are multinational organisations, and put a lot of pressure on our growers and farmers. Will the Minister respond on that? I would have pushed for such a measure in my private Member’s Bill, because I want fairness right through the supply chain, and not just among the top 10 supermarkets, which have the ability to self-finance the measure so that all are treated equally. The supermarkets should also have the ability to complain to the adjudicator or ombudsman. That is important if we are to have a fully open system of recourse through naming and shaming. The supermarkets should be able to put their side of the argument if the boot is on the other foot, although that would not happen often. I should like the Government to take that on board.

The measure has popular support, not just in the House, but in the country. As I have said, it has brought together non-governmental organisations, lobby groups, and farmers and growers throughout the UK, because there has been an injustice in how the grocery market has operated. The Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, who is the third to take up the role in less than three years, have an opportunity. Her predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is now Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said only last week at the Dispatch Box that it was essential to use sanctions to fine energy companies, which are alleged to be ripping off their customers. We must have consistency. The same should apply to large supermarkets that are alleged to be ripping off suppliers and consumers—at the end of the day, consumers pay the higher prices that filter through.

Rather than naming and shaming, we need fines in the Bill, and a real commitment to fairness in the system. The Bill will help, and I support it, but I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will vote for including fines in the Bill rather than just make speeches about it. The eyes of the consensus that the Bill has gathered will be on us, and we should show that we speak with one voice. Although the Under- Secretary would not take an intervention from me, I will take one from her if she wants to say who has lobbied her and why we should not include fines in the Bill. She has tried to make the case, but she does not want to take the opportunity I am offering her. Many of the supermarkets I have spoken to would not be that bothered if fines were included in the Bill, which has also achieved consensus among all the bodies I have named. As the hon. Member for St Ives has said, two or three supermarkets have come out in favour of the Bill. It will not be long before there is consensus among the top 10 supermarkets.

[Jo Swinson]

One key point the supermarkets have put to me was that there were no appeal powers for them in the Bill. Not going ahead with fines from day one means that we avoid the problem of miring the groceries code adjudicator in appeal processes. That is one reason why seeing whether naming and shaming is effective is a good way to proceed. The hon. Gentleman said that himself—he said he does not believe the supermarkets will be particularly bothered about fines, but they certainly were bothered about appeals.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister tells the House that we need to build in a proper appeals procedure, but hon. Members will work together to ensure that that happens.

[Jo Swinson]

The retailers argued for a proper appeals process. The challenge I outlined was that the adjudicator could end up running around in circles dealing with appeal after appeal rather than getting on with the important job of carrying out more investigations, which is what we want. Without the power to fine, we are convinced that a full merits appeals process is not required. That is one advantage of the Government’s approach.

[Albert Owen]

If, further down the line, serious breaches are identified by the adjudicator and the reserve power is used, we will be in that position anyway.

[Jo Swinson]

If.

[Albert Owen]

If. I am hopeful that if that situation arises the Government will bring forward their reserve powers, so we are only delaying the inevitable.