Supermarkets (Economic and Social Impact)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1679, in the name of Christopher Harvie, on supermarket dominance in Scottish retailing. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the dominance of large-scale supermarkets in Scottish retailing, as is evident in many of the burghs of Mid-Scotland and Fife, and considers that there should be an impartial study of their economic and social impact on communities and demand for local produce, taking into account other retail modes like smaller specialist shops, street markets or market halls and co-operatives.
My elderly parents, who are in their 10th decade, live in Melrose. Melrose is what the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland calls a home town, with good butchers and bakers, a fish shop, a greengrocery, wine merchants, ironmongers and, by no coincidence, excellent small hotels and restaurants. Eighty per cent of the shops on its High Street are independent. There is good public transport and plenty of car parking.
Of how many Scots towns can that be said? Steadily fewer. Throughout the country, the high street is under challenge from edge-of-town or even greenfield shopping. Where it wins, the high street gets taken over by mobile phone offices, charity shops, estate agents—at least up until now—fast-food outlets and cheapo dealers. Rest and recreation moves in, along with its twin, accident and emergency. Commerce moves out.
Unlike much of Europe, Britain has gone for United States-style retailing. There has not just been the destruction of the home town by the clone town and the end of the independent traders, there has been a swallowing up of the malls by the megamalls. Gordon Brown used to praise the wonderful productivity of the USA, much of which, the Financial Times tells us, involved retail—what was called "Wal-Martyrdom", in which suppliers and local stores were beaten down by giants using their monopoly power.
That affects the food that is supplied, as can be seen in Joanna Blythman's well-documented study, "Shopped". Food is picked for market convenience, not flavour. It is dull and often unripe, but it is sold through special offers, which we might refer to as binge shopping—people come back with loads of bargains that they never eat. Apparently we throw away 45 per cent of the food that we buy every week.
Is our collective binge drinking the result not just of cheap alcohol offers—it is cheaper than water in some outlets—but of the fact that food that ought to be exciting often tastes of nothing much?
We try to impress upon supermarkets the need to support local produce. I draw to the member's attention the fact that the biggest supermarket in Scotland, Tesco, does not shelve the world's number 1 selling whisky, Johnnie Walker red label. It is important to highlight that fact in support of the member's motion.
I commend Mr Coffey for that observation. Johnnie Walker, born in 1830, is still going nowhere in Kilmarnock, presumably. Mr Coffey can be assured that, through its wonderful systems of intelligence, Tesco will know that he mentioned it. Any time that we mention a supermarket in this place, the supermarkets react instantly. Tesco's intelligence service makes Minitruth in "1984" look like "Blue Peter".
The supermarket is deeply dependent on food miles as goods are transported by air or heavy lorry and, at the other end of the system, by the family car—imagine the carbon footprint. Since 1984, there has been a drastic modal shift for shopping trips from public transport or foot to car. That has hit non-motorists, the young, the elderly—a category for which I can now be considered to qualify—and people on low incomes.
When a big supermarket is proposed, we are always told that hundreds of jobs will be created. What sort of jobs will they be? Will they be low-skill, low-wage and part-time jobs? What happens to local service sector jobs in wholesaling, law, cleaning, transport and accommodation for commercial travellers? What happens to Scottish-owned clothing chains such as Mackays and Scottish food suppliers such as Taypack Potatoes of Inchture, which has just broken off its link with Asda because it feels that it will have its prices driven down further?
Tourism provides 10 per cent of our national income. People come to Scotland for the quality of our life and of our cities, towns and villages. Do they come to support supermarkets? Are they going to visit the lord of the isles in the Portree Tesco? Within a few years, will they be able to do so, even if they wish? We are nearing peak oil, north of $200 a barrel. In 1999, the cost of a barrel of oil was $10. What will be left of this motorised situation in 20 years?
The important thing is to keep options open, which is why I welcome the Government's round-table to discuss supermarket chains stocking Scottish-produced foodstuffs. However, ministers must ensure that that is not a purely nominal concession that becomes subject to a combination to reduce the prices paid to suppliers.
How much should the state intervene? It does so on the continent. In Germany, big retailers are handicapped by the prohibition on opening on Sundays and heavy goods vehicles cannot run on Sundays. Subsidies are paid to encourage organic stores and independent bookshops. There is intervention. There is a ministry for the Mittelstand; social insurance for market traders; and a more restrictive approach to granting planning permission for big supermarkets. That is helped by good public transport, town centre parking, recycling depots and local breweries, vineyards and bottling plants.
Cannot we have a trial in which we examine shopping locally, whereby home town is matched and analysed against clone town? The internal patterns of commerce and society within both could be measured, to enable us to get a picture of the economic dynamics that hold communities together or pull them apart.
There is nothing inevitable about what is happening. If we conduct an impartial investigation into the social and economic impact of large supermarkets on communities, in comparison with other modes of retail, we will at least know what we might be letting ourselves in for.
I congratulate Christopher Harvie on securing the debate. I refer members to my entry in the register of members' interests.
We might reflect on how we marry our aspirations to respond to the ambitions of our constituents and communities with our aspirations to respond to the ambitions of ActionAid and the Fairtrade movement. How do we encourage and support small businesses in town centres, which is an essential part of the debate? How do we reconcile that with the fact that some families and individuals prefer the supermarket alternative, or the American mall style of shopping, because of the shifts that they work and the convenience that that style of shopping offers?
I have lived and worked in Fife for more than 26 years. Over the past half century, Fife has changed from being a county that had more than 60 coal mines, thriving farming towns such as Cupar and a mix of land-holding aristocracy such as the Laird of Wemyss, Lord Elgin, Earl Lindsay, Sir John Gilmour, who owned the Montrave estate, and Sir David Erskine. It was a very rich county at one stage and, to some extent, it still is. There were vibrant town centres in places such as Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly—members will no doubt mention other towns in the debate. Those towns were vibrant because of the coal mining and the farming, but all that has changed. The coal mines have gone—there is not one left in Fife—and the farming is much diminished from what it once was.
We now have imports of food from all over the world at all times of the year and, given the more sophisticated tastes that we have in this country, people would be loth to depart from that. However, we must take responsibility for our carbon footprints. There is no doubt that there is a great attraction in visiting town centres that are rich in history and retain their character. That is at the very heart of it—when one goes abroad or to another part of the United Kingdom, one comes back with great ideas.
In Devon, a village shop was taken over by the community when its owners retired in 2004. The local people identified the fact that the shop offered a great opportunity for them to continue to provide shopping opportunities for the community. That is the kind of thing that I like to see, and I am sure that the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism does too, because he has spoken recently about how communities can help to keep their shops open at a time when they are often challenged by shop owners wanting to move on. We have a duty and responsibility in the Parliament to encourage, promote and support the training of individuals so that they can have community co-operatives and community town centres. I have been a great advocate of community businesses in that regard.
The United Kingdom Government has done something about the situation, but we need to keep the pressure on. A competition inquiry into supermarkets has, after two years, passed judgment on how the retail giants do business. There is no doubt that supermarkets are guilty of abusing their suppliers, and we need to acknowledge that. A watchdog is needed to make supermarkets play fair, and it must protect overseas suppliers. We must work with ActionAid, because this is a big debate and we need to consider the impact on employment in countries where people are much less fortunate than we are. Christopher Harvie has provoked a good discussion, and I congratulate him on stimulating the debate.
I thank my colleague for introducing the debate; his speech was—as always—interesting, erudite and stimulating. I will say a little bit about the hypocrisy that surrounds the supermarket sweep before I move on to other things. I shop in supermarkets and I hold my surgeries in Tesco in Galashiels and Penicuik. That is where the people are, and I am at the end of the conveyor belt where they come past. We must deal with the fact that, although we know the ills of supermarkets, we are—even as we say such things—in them buying our stuff. I tell Willie Coffey that there are great malt whiskies in Tesco, and it did not pay me to say that. I hope that it gets Johnnie Walker in.
I am considering Galashiels as opposed to Melrose—I agree with what was said about Melrose. It is also true to some extent of Peebles. In Galashiels, we have Asda WalMart, Tesco, and Marks and Spencer Food to Go with Per Una. That combination is very useful, and the people like it, but it is devastating for local businesses in Galashiels. Already, a fashion shop has closed and the fishmonger has gone. The greengrocer saw the writing on the wall and moved to Innerleithen. The butcher manages to survive because he fills a niche in the market by presenting meat in a special way and by selling a variety that it is not possible to find in the supermarket. Having dealt with the hypocrisy, we must address the fact that there has to be a balance.
I agree that planners, in considering such issues, should be looking at what is happening on main streets. We know that charity shops are taking over. They have taken over in Galashiels and in Peebles. Even more serious is the lack of choice and the wastage to which Christopher Harvie referred. Buy-one-get-one-free offers are terrible. Who wants two cauliflowers—especially if people live alone or there are only two people in the house? We know that we will throw one out. I object to prices being lifted under such schemes. The suggestion is that customers get something for nothing, but they do not—they pay for everything.
Lack of choice even extends to what is grown. Years ago, I went to see tomato growers in a co-operative in Clydesdale and asked them about the tomato plants that they grow. They do not get to choose the plants that they grow—they grow the plants that the supermarkets say look pretty; that is, if the tomatoes on the vine are all red and are the right shape at the right time. That, however, is not how tomatoes grow: the ones at the end of the vine should be ripe and the rest green. It is about appearance rather than taste, so Christopher Harvie was right to say that quality is giving way to appearance. A generation of children are growing up who do not know what a ripe plum tastes like. While I am on the subject, can we have ripe, in-season plums in the Parliament for a change? The ones that we have are as hard as nuts because it is the wrong time of the year. The caterers could start doing it in Parliament: let us have seasonal fruit. That is a serious issue, because it has driven people out of business.
I compliment the Scottish National Party—why should I not? About 20 years ago, we ran a campaign to bring local produce into the supermarkets. I know that because I embarrassed my sons by standing outside Asda with a placard that said, "Buy Scottish produce". My sons said, "Mum, can't we lead a quiet life?" I said, "Not when I'm around." We should move things in that direction.
If we are talking about healthy eating, healthy children and healthy grown-ups, let us have local, in-season produce. Who on Earth wants to eat strawberries in December when we all know that Scottish strawberries are best and that they are best eaten in June and July?
I declare an interest as a farmer, as the founder chairman of the Scottish Association of Farmers Markets and as a modest food retailer in my own right.
I congratulate Christopher Harvie on securing a debate on supermarket dominance in retailing at a crucial time, when food security is rising to the top of the political agenda. His motion
"notes with concern the dominance of large-scale supermarkets in Scottish retailing".
I have to agree. Of course, supermarkets have been hugely successful in respect of shareholder value and have made available to the Scottish public an unsurpassed range of good quality and well-presented food products, of which previous generations could only have dreamed. Supermarkets are here to stay and, to be fair, if we did not have them we would probably be trying to invent them. I agree with Christine Grahame in that regard.
However, their success has come at a cost, particularly to town centres, many of which have as a result lost their bustling local food shops and their character. That is why the Scottish Conservative manifesto proposed a £20 million town-centre regeneration fund.
A cost has also been borne by food producers. Their margins have been squeezed so much that many livestock farmers have moved out of farming and, sadly, many more are considering doing so. For that reason, our party has long supported the introduction of an ombudsman, which cannot happen soon enough.
As I said, we live in changing times. It is regrettable that food security, high oil prices, global warming and a growing world population all, for different reasons, contribute to driving up the price of food. Higher fuel costs and peak oil suggest that more food will need to be produced and consumed locally. It may become socially unacceptable to fly out-of-season vegetables half way round the world as a result of the need to conserve oil supplies for future generations and because of peak oil.
Farmers markets have taken the lead by reintroducing seasonality into shopping patterns. In-season produce may be all that consumers can afford in the future if oil rises further in price, so I believe that a renewed opportunity exists for farmers markets, for farm shops and for all local food retailers to further develop their businesses.
In Scotland, that means developing better food and drink supply chains. It also means more co-operation between individual food producers and it means taking the specialist advice of organisations such as the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society Ltd on how best to achieve those aims by, for example, creating distribution hubs and funding new routes to market. That will also give local food, which is by definition often less processed and has less salt and fewer fats added, the opportunity to be used in supporting the healthy eating agenda. The encouragement of more public procurement of locally produced fresh food will benefit the environment, people's health and the primary producers of food. "Buy local, eat local" should be the order of the day.
The new ombudsman, when it is in place, must ensure fairer returns from the marketplace for fruit producers. Scottish Conservatives look forward to the creation of a new and extended grocery supply code of practice, as well as to the end of abuses of power, such as the demand for lump-sum payments and enforced promotional costs.
Again, I congratulate Patrick Harvie on bringing the motion to Parliament. I hope that the minister will respond favourably to the many points that will be raised during the debate.
Unless I am mistaken, it is Christopher Harvie's motion, but never mind.
I congratulate Christopher Harvie on securing his members' business debate and, of course, on mentioning Melrose, which is in my region and is famous for its fine foods and for long supporting the Liberal Democrat member whose son has brought this debate.
Back in 1999, the Office of Fair Trading asked the then Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate concerns that large supermarkets were bullying suppliers. A code of conduct was subsequently produced, but it was not effective. Recently, the Competition Commission's report into the grocery sector recommended an independent ombudsman to oversee relationships between larger retailers and their suppliers. That is good news and is something for which Lib Dems and others have campaigned for some time.
We have seen progress recently with supplier co-operatives, aided by the likes of SAOS, and some supermarkets slowly waking up to the idea of having local and sustainable food on their shelves. However, we need sustainability in the supply chain, as John Scott said, rather than just buying what is cheapest. We have seen lamb coming in from New Zealand, but the farmers there are losing money, and there are strawberries at Christmas. Few people realise that the buy-one-get-one-free offers that Christine Grahame mentioned—the BOGOF Christine Grahame—are paid for by the suppliers and not by the supermarkets. I have spoken to local high street traders across the south of Scotland—in Hawick, Galashiels, Dunbar, Haddington, Dumfries and even in fine Lockerbie—and it is clear that larger retailers have an impact on those local businesses. The larger retailers have huge buying power and can reduce prices to such a low that they outcompete the smaller businesses.
Some people may feel that quick and convenient shopping gives them better quality of life because they spend less time shopping and more time at home with their families, while others may feel that a few hours spent shopping on the high street is more beneficial for local business and the community.
I thank Jim Hume for the name he has given me, but I do not know whether I agree with it.
The issue is not just about what Jim Hume has talked about. On restricting choice, whether for varieties of vegetables or livestock, does he agree that the supermarkets now determine the range that we have, and that we are losing seed stock in the process?
I concur with Christine Grahame's view. The control of genetic modification of food is driven by people making big money, and we will potentially lose seeds and so on through that.
I cannot underestimate the economic importance of small local traders, but it is perhaps more important that they keep towns and villages full of life. I have said previously in the chamber and elsewhere that businesses in the south of Scotland are mostly small to medium-sized businesses: that is probably the case in any rural area.
I have visited shops in Dunbar and Galashiels, in which a small part of the business is devoted to selling speciality premium Scottish drink. However, such trading might have to cease because the businesses cannot afford the new licence fee. Rules should be more flexible in order to accommodate and help smaller businesses rather than to restrict them—that goes for allotment growers as well. At the same time, supermarkets sell alcohol at knock-down prices, with the excuse that they are competing with others. There is an argument for supermarkets showing social responsibility in that respect.
Liberal Democrats have long advocated the use of local produce. I would welcome any measure that would encourage that, including a study. I want the Scottish Government to put in place measures to encourage the use of more local produce. Eleven months ago, in my members' business debate on local food, I highlighted the use of fresh seasonal produce in our hospitals, schools and prisons. The same should go for our supermarkets. I hope that the minister will reassure me on that and on the need for a fairer deal for the whole supply chain.
I thank John Scott for giving me the credit for this fine debate, which I am happy to accept. I congratulate myself on securing time for it.
To be serious, I was sitting in the seat behind Chris Harvie's just over a couple of years ago when the Greens introduced a debate on supermarkets, so I am delighted to participate in this debate, which pursues the same issue. At the time, we were slightly ridiculed for suggesting that supermarkets were in any way a bad thing. It is interesting to see how far they have come up the agenda and to hear the criticisms of supermarkets.
We can all list many criticisms, as several members have. Supermarkets have an impact on local retailers, such as those that Chris Harvie mentioned. I happened to be walking back to a train station through one of Scotland's high streets today and I was stopped in my tracks by the sight of what looked like a genuinely independent local baker, because that is so rare in high streets these days.
I am pretty lucky where I live, in Shawlands on the south side of Glasgow. A host of independent shops that sell not only food but other products survive there, but the supermarkets are encroaching—they are at one end of the street and are opening at the other, and little high-street mini-supermarkets are beginning to take over other space. Such developments are happening in many parts of Glasgow. Even this week, people in Partick are waiting with bated breath for the result of Tesco's appeal for yet another supermarket there. Partick is well served by supermarkets, and the few independent retailers who hang on are threatened by the proposed development.
However, the impact of supermarkets is felt not only by local retailers, as there is a host of impacts on the environment. Supermarket bags have come up the waste agenda. Even though they form one small part of the waste stream, they are iconic, and many more people are aware of them.
I genuinely believe that supermarkets are structurally incapable of doing better at addressing localism and selling local food. They can have a bit of shelf space for a bit of local produce, but they will never fundamentally transform their way of operating, because they operate through national and global structures. They offer the deals that they have only because they operate on a huge scale; that cannot work on a local scale.
There are other reasons why we are beginning to cotton on to the problems of supermarkets. The price issue is a con. We spend more, not less, on our food as a result of supermarket offers. Some supermarket products are sold at cut-down cheap prices, but we spend more on processed foods and ready meals as a result of supermarket promotion. The choice issue is also a con, because when small retailers shut down, we lose that choice.
Above all, apart from all those impacts, supermarkets are just so damn soulless, in comparison with a real high street with real shops that sell real food.
The political response to supermarkets is inadequate. Competition law is failing us, principally because its purpose is to protect companies and to ensure strong competition between them rather than to protect people.
It is time to put supermarkets back in their box. They were initially supposed to be a useful supplement to a healthy and diverse local economy, but they are no longer that; they have become far too dominant. It is time to recapture our food culture from them. One good step forward would be for the Parliament never again to accept commercial sponsorship for an event, as happened at the session 3 ceremony last year, when bags with Asda adverts were given away. However, the issue goes far beyond that. We must recapture our food culture in a local way.
I thank Chris Harvie for the debate. I apologise that I cannot stay for all of it, but I appreciate the fact that he secured it.
I, too, congratulate Chris Harvie on securing the first debate since the end of 2004 that is directly on supermarkets. I also congratulate Patrick Harvie, because what he said suggests that he is perhaps the only member who never shops in a supermarket. I guess that that is what he implied.
I would not say that I never shop in a supermarket, but I do so as rarely as I can. My point was that we should put supermarkets back in the role that they were supposed to have when they came on to the scene.
I thank the member. I made that point to echo Christine Grahame's point about hypocrisy and how careful we have to be. The truth of the matter is that I would be surprised if anyone who is elected to the Parliament does not shop in the supermarket at some point. Some will do so more than others, but we all find ourselves there and, mostly, we will continue to do so. There are very good reasons for that. By the time people get home at night, nothing else is open—the supermarket is the only place that they can go to easily and quickly to get all the shopping done. That is why supermarkets have become so popular.
We should not stop shopping in our local high streets and farmers markets. I recall seeing a figure—I wish that I had kept it because I have never been able to find it again—that showed that if we all made just one purchase a week in our local shops, that would be sufficient to ensure their economic health into the future. We should look very closely at that.
A number of the briefings that we have received refer to the wider benefits of shopping locally. It is not just about the shop local idea; there are social, environmental and health benefits, some of which members have mentioned. That package of benefits adds up to a potential cultural shift: if we shop locally, we could reverse the wholesale cultural shift towards supermarkets that we must accept has taken place. Shopping locally would provide a more even balance.
I want to mention two or three specific issues that need to be considered if we are to start to shift the balance back. First, as Helen Eadie mentioned, we have to tackle the unequal relationship between the multiples and local suppliers. There is no doubt that we will have to get in there and do something if we are to make that relationship more useful for local suppliers and prevent the multiples from bringing huge pressures to bear on them.
One of my bugbears is that we must achieve a level playing field between the multiples, which offer free parking, and the town centre, which does not. It is not rocket science to work out where folk will go if they have to drive around the town centre to find a parking space that they then have to pay for, as opposed to nipping up to the free car park outside the supermarket. That needs to be considered.
We also need to build on the small business support that has already been put in place, and which is already making a visible difference in rural towns—it is certainly making a difference in Crieff. Such incentives could be put in place to help small shops. However, we also need to challenge some of the small retailers to think about how they deliver what they offer so that they can balance out the primacy of the supermarkets.
I am lucky to live in Crieff, where we have two very good delicatessens on the High Street, both of which feature in "Scotland the Best". There are loads of other independent shops that sell not only food but fashion and other non-food items. That is all in a town that already has one largish supermarket and a smaller branch of another multiple. Crieff High Street is hanging on. However, another big supermarket row is developing, with two of the big multiples going head to head. That has not yet been resolved, so whether Crieff High Street will continue to hang on is another matter.
The truth is that it is up to each of us to use our purchasing power to make the difference. We should start with our individual commitments today. We should all be a lot less hypocritical about some of these debates, too.
I thank Christopher Harvie for lodging the motion for this evening's debate.
Supermarkets have grown in importance in our daily lives, from being virtually non-existent 40 or 50 years ago to being omnipresent and at the centre of much household shopping in Scotland. The convenience of the supermarket and getting there, the parking and the shopping hours that extend well into the evening, or even for 24 hours, together with the range and certainty of supply of stock all under one roof have all been key to the success of the 21st century supermarket. It is very difficult for the high street to compete on that basis. When supermarket convenience is combined with relatively low prices and strong branding and advertising, it is clear why the supermarket has become such a powerful part of our lives.
A supermarket can contribute to regeneration by bringing jobs, shops and a new lease of life to an area. In my region, Glenrothes is set to benefit from two new supermarkets, both of which appear to be adopting a modern and responsible approach to large-scale retailing: one will be an eco-store that will employ renewable technologies, and the other will contribute to the regeneration of the town's main shopping area. Increasingly, some retailers are becoming responsible and responsive to their local community—although we must recognise that that happens only when they see it as being good for their business.
However, supermarket development is not always necessarily a good thing in itself. Many have suggested that out-of-town shopping developments, which are often centred on large supermarkets, are a significant contributory factor in the degeneration of many town centres. Equally, more recently, environmental concerns about supermarkets have come to the fore. As a society, we are beginning to question whether it continues to make sense to have large-scale out-of-town—and, therefore, car-reliant—shopping centres, which sell out-of-season goods sourced from around the world and all needlessly packaged in plastic and cardboard. The consequences and contradictions of the carbon emissions of such shopping behaviour are coming into sharp focus. It remains to be seen whether supermarkets and customers are able to adapt to reduce the carbon emissions of shopping on such a scale.
I want to raise briefly the pricing policies of some supermarket chains. Many of our most deprived communities, including those in my region, have only one small store from which to get food and other daily essentials. Many people within those communities do not have cars to take them to the larger and cheaper out-of-town stores. That means that they are very much at the mercy of the prices and offers that are available at the local store. However, as a number of supermarket chains have put in place differential pricing policies that depend on store size, the smaller stores often have higher prices and have fewer offers available. I fear that the double whammy of such pricing policies and lack of transport means that some of our poorest communities pay the most for their daily essentials.
In the energy sector, gas and electricity suppliers provide social tariffs that guarantee cheap rates for their poorest customers, and I believe that it is worth considering a similar voluntary scheme for the retail sector to provide social tariffs for daily essentials. In that way, supermarket chains could ensure that their stores in Scotland's most deprived communities sold goods at the low prices that are available in the larger out-of-town stores. Today, I have written to the minister and several supermarket chains to seek their views on my proposal. I look forward to exploring the idea in a constructive and consensual manner with all interested parties.
I thank Chris Harvie again for giving us the opportunity to raise these issues.
I congratulate Chris Harvie on triggering the debate, which I wish had lasted longer as it deals with so much. After all, the issue is the focus of attention of many Government portfolios—including enterprise, tourism, planning, rural affairs, communities and health and wellbeing—and we all have an interest in it. The key concerns that have come through in today's debate include: the potential domination of the high street; the long-term condition of the high street; the potential eclipse of local foods; and the status of Scottish content in the sales mix. The issue is really important because it impacts on health and wellbeing, the economy and everything.
Christine Grahame and Roseanna Cunningham provided a good, sensible voice of balance. They recognised that the supermarkets meet a need and that people exercise choice. The fact that 81 per cent of groceries are sold through supermarkets is not happenstance. Supermarkets also play a big part in employment and in Scotland's supply chain, albeit that they, the entire retail sector and the suppliers could—I will argue—do better. Indeed, I believe that they see the opportunity to do better. Chris Harvie's point that home town may well be better than clone town is a message that will resonate even in some unlikely places.
I accept and support the objective of renewing high streets and invigorating the supply chain. High streets are the heart of our communities, and grocery is a key element in the high-street sales mix. Food and drink and grocery production are at the heart of our rural communities. Food and drink are important to health and wellbeing, quality of life and economic vibrancy. Our high streets are equally important in delivering all of that as well as for tourism, by demonstrating the personality and very character of who we are and why people should come to Scotland.
Planning policy must play a part in the tangible steps to manage the issue going forward, in as much as there must be—and is—a sequential test to ensure that the town centre is the first port of call for any supermarket. The need for an edge-of-town or out-of-town location needs to be severely justified. That issue will come under closer scrutiny as we consider the report of the Competition Commission, to which I will turn in a moment.
Another important factor is the small business bonus, which will encourage small shops to invest, innovate and adapt. I look forward to more town centres learning from other, vibrant, town centres by adapting ideas that have worked elsewhere. The business improvement district initiative is kicking in and is beginning to deliver real results. Communities are coming together in a concrete way. Resources of £145 million per annum are available from the fairer Scotland fund, which will contribute to improving town centres.
Another issue is the food supply side. We may find that, in light of the Competition Commission's report, supermarkets are more receptive to dialogue with their suppliers and to positive developments. Good business sense and climate change may lead them to source more from local suppliers. Back in 2004, our predecessors dismissed the idea of holding a summit with the supermarkets, but now there is the prospect of such a summit. I am interested in getting the retail sector to talk to us, as other sectors such as construction, food and drink, and textiles have done. On 30 May, we will run a session in Oban that will bring together the food and drink sector, its whole supply chain—including supermarkets and stores—the local council and the national health service to get a debate going. That is evidence of the fact that I was listening when I was down with John Scott for the Ayr by-election back in 2000.
The popular movement to educate people in food is playing a part. Examples include the healthy eating initiative, the Fife diet and the growth of farmers markets, for which John Scott can take credit. The Competition Commission is now on the case. Its final report, hot off the press, was published on 30 April and contains profound findings. The report concludes that some companies have an excessively strong position in certain local markets and that there is an excessive transfer of risk to suppliers. It expresses concern about the negative impact that that has on investment and innovation, calls for closer dialogue and contains some strong recommendations. The report seeks the introduction of a competition test as part of the planning process, favouring new entrants, and includes plans to force companies to relinquish control of sites, again to enable new entrants. It recommends that the provisions of the supermarket code of conduct be tightened and that an ombudsman be appointed. The report is now with the United Kingdom Government and an intergovernmental committee has been set up, to whose response we will contribute.
We will learn from all the comments that have been made here tonight. Helen Eadie's comments on the restoration of local self-sufficiency in all areas of the economy resonate around the chamber. Her comments on generational transfer and the use of social enterprise to keep local businesses in place were very vivid. I can tell her today that Martin Stepek of the Scottish Family Business Association is meeting some interested pro bono lawyers to see how that approach can be facilitated.
Roseanna Cunningham and Christine Grahame spoke about balance and made solid comments about the need for people to make one purchase a week from local shops. Small business support and people power can play a part in levelling the playing field. I was particularly taken by Jim Hume's important point, augmented by Christine Grahame, about the diversity of produce and local traders. Such diversity brings with it a certain strength. As a farmer and food supplier who has watched the gestation of the problem over recent years, John Scott is able to offer an important insider's view.
The Government is aware of the concerns that exist about elements of Scottish retailing: the dominance of supermarkets, their impact on town centres and their treatment of suppliers. We are working on a number of fronts to address those concerns and to ensure that all sections of the community have access to and can benefit from a wide choice of shopping, services and produce, in the knowledge that that will make us stronger in all the areas of Scottish life that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. It will give us a stronger economy, healthier people, stronger rural communities, a better tourism offering and a more vivid and vibrant Scotland. There is a real chance of recovery.
We are engaged in a process of systems thinking—bringing people in particular sectors together to see how they can work together better to get better outcomes. Many sectors—construction, engineering, electronics and the third sector—have been self-nominating, but we have not yet heard from the retail sector. It may think that the proposed summit is enough, but I am willing to engage with the sector if it comes forward. When the session that we intend to hold with the sector, focusing on groceries, takes place, I will ensure that the supply chain is involved.
Meeting closed at 17:45.