>>Colin Breed, Liberal Democrat MP South East Cornwall, ON WHY RETAILER POWER MUST BE CURBED
The recent news of Asda’s 30,000sq ft expansion of a Sheffield supermarket caused me some anger and frustration. Since Asda’s absorption into the world’s largest company (Wal-Mart), we have seen further seismic shifts in the nature of supermarket retailing. It is not too strong a statement to say that the government has failed to recognise the downward spiral of retailing that has seen the public’s interests sacrificed on the altar of the profits of a monolithic supermarket oligarchy. Cheap food is not the only criterion that concerns the public.
In 1998 when I was Liberal Democrat spokesman for consumer affairs I published Checking Out The Supermarkets in which I made a number of how the government could prevent supermarkets from developing a stranglehold on the retail market. PPG6 was then just five years old - a response to the free-for-all on retail planning that had characterised the 1980s.
But even then it was possible to see this regulation did not go far enough. I recommended the definition of permissible floor space should be in proportion to the size of the local population centre rather than to national criteria, and that developers be required to prove the range of existing local facilities would not be reduced by their arrival.
Five years on I stand by these recommendations, made even more urgent by the current climate of supermarket retailing that is causing the destruction of local economies now more than ever. This is an important point: such planning loopholes allow supermarkets to tighten their grip and consequently every group including consumers and suppliers, smaller retailers and workers, rich and poor suffer.
Despite the government’s introduction of a ‘scale of need’ to help assess the strength of a developer’s proposal, this is widely viewed as open to interpretation.
It was only a matter of time before supermarkets found a way round planning regulations and Asda’s construction of mezzanine floors in two of its stores (with a further 40 stores possibly waiting in the wings for a refit) is a case in point.
Furthermore, where Asda goes others will surely follow. This has already been proved by supermarkets extending into electrical equipment and clothes, a strategy learnt from Wal-Mart’s policy changes at Asda.
Such an expansion means supermarkets leave few sectors of the local retail infrastructure untouched by their presence and can decimate smaller retails at a stroke.
While supermarkets’ diversification into areas such as banking, photo-developing and even divorce services requires a slightly different regulatory approach, no one can deny that limiting the physical floor space from which supermarkets can trade will enable local people still to have some say in the role these giants play in the local economy, something many feel has been taken from them in planning decisions.
The planning loophole in PPG6 that has permitted Asda’s expansion is symptomatic of a deeper governmental myopia when it comes to protecting the individuality of local communities and their economies.
The economic and social implications for us all, if we find ourselves exclusively dependent on one outlet and one company for all our needs, must be clearly articulated.
For one thing, such a situation means a raw deal for the poor and elderly and isolated. Furthermore, supermarkets can place draconian demands upon their employees and suppliers. In the latter case the failure of the code of practice is a particular concern.
Consumer choice should mean a full range of buying opportunities, not a decision between one supermarket or another and certainly not one all-encompassing superstore with all the monopoly powers such a situation allows.
The recent news of Asda’s 30,000sq ft expansion of a Sheffield supermarket caused me some anger and frustration. Since Asda’s absorption into the world’s largest company (Wal-Mart), we have seen further seismic shifts in the nature of supermarket retailing. It is not too strong a statement to say that the government has failed to recognise the downward spiral of retailing that has seen the public’s interests sacrificed on the altar of the profits of a monolithic supermarket oligarchy. Cheap food is not the only criterion that concerns the public.
In 1998 when I was Liberal Democrat spokesman for consumer affairs I published Checking Out The Supermarkets in which I made a number of how the government could prevent supermarkets from developing a stranglehold on the retail market. PPG6 was then just five years old - a response to the free-for-all on retail planning that had characterised the 1980s.
But even then it was possible to see this regulation did not go far enough. I recommended the definition of permissible floor space should be in proportion to the size of the local population centre rather than to national criteria, and that developers be required to prove the range of existing local facilities would not be reduced by their arrival.
Five years on I stand by these recommendations, made even more urgent by the current climate of supermarket retailing that is causing the destruction of local economies now more than ever. This is an important point: such planning loopholes allow supermarkets to tighten their grip and consequently every group including consumers and suppliers, smaller retailers and workers, rich and poor suffer.
Despite the government’s introduction of a ‘scale of need’ to help assess the strength of a developer’s proposal, this is widely viewed as open to interpretation.
It was only a matter of time before supermarkets found a way round planning regulations and Asda’s construction of mezzanine floors in two of its stores (with a further 40 stores possibly waiting in the wings for a refit) is a case in point.
Furthermore, where Asda goes others will surely follow. This has already been proved by supermarkets extending into electrical equipment and clothes, a strategy learnt from Wal-Mart’s policy changes at Asda.
Such an expansion means supermarkets leave few sectors of the local retail infrastructure untouched by their presence and can decimate smaller retails at a stroke.
While supermarkets’ diversification into areas such as banking, photo-developing and even divorce services requires a slightly different regulatory approach, no one can deny that limiting the physical floor space from which supermarkets can trade will enable local people still to have some say in the role these giants play in the local economy, something many feel has been taken from them in planning decisions.
The planning loophole in PPG6 that has permitted Asda’s expansion is symptomatic of a deeper governmental myopia when it comes to protecting the individuality of local communities and their economies.
The economic and social implications for us all, if we find ourselves exclusively dependent on one outlet and one company for all our needs, must be clearly articulated.
For one thing, such a situation means a raw deal for the poor and elderly and isolated. Furthermore, supermarkets can place draconian demands upon their employees and suppliers. In the latter case the failure of the code of practice is a particular concern.
Consumer choice should mean a full range of buying opportunities, not a decision between one supermarket or another and certainly not one all-encompassing superstore with all the monopoly powers such a situation allows.
No comments yet