It’s difficult to remain focused on a story that drags on and on, but though I suspect torpor will soon set in over the Iceland acquisition - which is surely set to chunter and churn through countless rounds of legal and financial negotiation before the outcome is eventually decided some time next year - it’s important.

I was reminded of the need for focus by this week’s news on the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The recommendation to appoint an Ombudsman was taken in the mists of a pre-recessionary era, ie 2008. The most likely date for its introduction is 2014.

Yet the draft bill in Parliament this week reveals that the GCA will not have the power to fine offenders. This is clearly great news for retailers. And it’s all in the interest of protecting the anonymity of complainants, according to the impact assessment that accompanies the draft bill, as “any dispute that could result in the imposition of a penalty would involve the supplier being identified to the retailer, which may deter suppliers from seeking resolutions” for fear of being delisted.

Since retailers would have “a financial incentive to prolong investigations by disputing every point”, and there would need to be a right of appeal, operational costs could rocket, it adds.

Instead, the government is promising to name and shame, with offending retailers being required to fess up in national newspaper mea culpas, as well as annual reports. Will this be enough to correct supplier abuse? It hardly seems likely. Under the highly prized terms of anonymity secured by suppliers, the retailer won’t even know who it is apologising to.

Yet without the ability to fine, or to name the victim, media coverage is likely to be far lower (unless Twitter has a say in the matter). And with so little teeth, if the GCA is “under-utilised” and complaints “do not materialise”, it could be disbanded after three years.

For more glacial developments, watch this space!

Topics