Hansard

There is no doubt that the supermarkets, thanks to their ingenuity and chilling business acumen, have changed the way in which we shop, eat and think in this country. Their phenomenal growth has seen the likes of Tesco reach the stage at which sales in the UK have reached £13 billion.

Yesterday, we heard that the Government is investing £2.1 million to develop the marine energy sector in Scotland. That would not even pay the salary of Tesco's chief executive, which is nearly £3 million. In 2003, it was said that he received 255 times the average income of farmers in the United Kingdom.

The supermarkets will be with us for the foreseeable future and consumers are voting with their feet, which is why supermarkets are so successful. People are work obsessed and impatient and they like convenience, which is why they use supermarkets. They like to be able to buy fresh fruit and DVDs round the clock. They can shop for whatever they like whenever they like. They can buy economy or luxury lines in-store or online. Consumers just want quality, safety, choice and low prices, and as far as they are concerned, they can have that from their supermarkets.

However, all good things have a price. We have in-store bakeries, pharmacies and meat and fish counters, which have taken their toll on the high streets in our towns and villages throughout Scotland. That is why many high streets are littered with "To Let" signs and boarded-up windows. We are all aware of the recent study that said that every time a new supermarket opens, 276 jobs are lost locally.

Supermarkets take advantage of global food production, which also has a cost, because they go for the cheapest rather than the closest source, which runs up food miles. That has environmental consequences.

The crux of today's debate is the power of the big four supermarkets and their impact on Scotland's primary producers. As has been said, the big four control 75 per cent of grocery retail in the UK and Scotland. That leaves suppliers in a vulnerable situation, because they have fewer customers and more purchasing power is put in the hands of fewer supermarket giants. Many people in Scotland believe that that has resulted in some supermarkets abusing their power and being viewed as the private sector's bully-boys.

The supermarkets have soaring profits and someone must pay to allow them to make those profits. At the top of the list are suppliers. Primary producers are at the bottom of the food chain—it is a David and Goliath situation. In 1999, the Rural Affairs Committee took evidence from an economist who told us that only 15p in every pound that is spent on groceries in Scotland goes to the farmer. We must investigate what happens between the plough and the plate. The SNP urges Ross Finnie to investigate the situation locally in Scotland to find out where money goes and what role supermarkets and everyone else play in the food supply chain. We urge him to say that he will do that.

Milk provides the most topical illustration of what is happening. I have read the executive summary of a Milk Development Council report that was published in August, which says:

"Over the past ten years farmgate prices and farm margins have fallen, dairy processor margins have remained fairly constant, while retailer margins have increased across all products."

The NFUS has said that a quarter of family farms in Scotland went under in the past five years, which has a knock-on impact on the rest of the rural economy and not just on farms. That is a problem. We must protect our primary producers, because we need food security in Scotland, as well as Europe and the rest of the world—that rarely comes up in debate.

The current climate favours supermarkets and we must consider how we can tip the balance in favour of suppliers. The code of practice is one avenue for achieving that. The SNP is sympathetic to the sentiments in the Green party's motion and supports the campaign by the NFUS and others to strengthen the code and appoint an independent overseer. However, we must be realistic. Even if an independent overseer is appointed and people are given anonymity, people will not complain, because of the imbalance of power between supermarkets and suppliers. No matter what the circumstances are, supermarkets will always be able to track the source of a complaint. The danger that suppliers will be blackballed always exists, so we must be realistic. The Green party's motion is pretty naive, because it does not offer a wide range of solutions.

If we want to empower suppliers and primary producers, we need Government help through public procurement, so that our suppliers do not have just a few customers but have diverse customers, which include the national health service and education institutions. We need a report from the minister on the extent to which public procurement assists local suppliers. A requirement to cut packaging would also incentivise the procurement of supplies from local sources.

It is important that consumers have the information with which to make informed choices. Labelling is one way to achieve that. If the consumer is informed, they will make better choices. If they know that produce has better welfare standards and is local, they will be more likely to buy it. Providing that information is one way to help suppliers in Scotland.

Supermarkets must compete against one another not only on price—that is not as much of an issue as it used to be—but on welfare standards, freshness, traceability and ethically clean food. If they do that, Scotland will have a huge opportunity, because that will create a win-win situation for Scottish suppliers, which can tick the boxes for all those criteria.

Not only Governments, but consumers, can put pressure on supermarkets. The debate about genetic modification meant that all the supermarkets took genetically modified foods off their shelves because of pressure from the public, and not just from the Government.

We must consider vertical integration and expanding co-operatives. I am pleased that the minister mentioned that.

We ask the minister to convene a summit of supermarkets in Scotland at which he will speak to them directly about all the issues that have been discussed in the debate. It is well within the minister's power to do that, so why does he not go ahead and do it? At least that would offer one way of discussing the issues with supermarket heads. In the past few years, I have pressed the minister in the Parliament to hold such meetings, but few have taken place. Now he has the opportunity to have them.

The over-30-months scheme is affecting the beef sector in particular. The Food Standards Agency gave advice months ago that it is safe for such meat to re-enter the food chain, but we still wait for the scheme to be scrapped. One reason why the beef sector cannot increase its profitability is that it can give beef only to supermarkets. If we can reopen our overseas export markets, suppliers will be able to obtain a better price for their beef, which will allow them to increase their profitability. It is imperative that there is an end to the dithering and delay and that the minister ends the scheme as soon as possible.