“While the Government dithers the Conservatives are clear: we will introduce an Ombudsman to curb abuses of power which undermine our farmers and act against the long-term interest of consumers.” So said the Shadow DEFRA Secretary Nick Herbert at the Oxford Farming Conference recently.

In principle, the notion of an organisation whose sole remit is to curb abuses of power by the major food retailers is a good one – indeed the competition watchdog recently asked the Government to establish an ombudsman after a majority of retailers failed to agree on a voluntary arrangement. Yet, the Conservative indication of a benefit to the consumer is somewhat strange; the Competition Commission itself conducted an investigation between 2006 and 2008 and found that the strength of Britain's top four grocers -- Tesco, Asda, J Sainsbury and Morrison -- has helped to keep food prices down for shoppers.

During a consultation period, most grocery retailers opposed an ombudsman, saying it would create an unnecessary and costly layer of bureaucracy and would lead to higher prices.

While there is no doubt that the situation requires some attention - consumers will suffer if retailers squeeze suppliers to the extent that they become too weak to invest in products or to innovate - the very definition of an ombudsman, is a body that rules on disputes between, in this case, supermarkets and their suppliers. While this may offer short-term benefit to farmers and food manufacturers, it would offer little in the way of a long term solution – in short, why would a supermarket use a supplier that bought its reputation into disrepute by taking a dispute to the ombudsman? Most farmers and manufacturers have become so reliant on supermarkets, that they would rather not risk losing the business. The action would amount to little more than telling the teachers about the school bully. Indeed, as NFU President Peter Kendall recently said: “An ombudsman would need to provide proactive and robust enforcement of the Grocery Suppliers Code of Practice as well as protection of anonymity for suppliers to eliminate the climate of fear that currently exists.”

That said, any action taken against supermarkets should be taken by the Headmaster – not a supply teacher. The future Government should enact legislation to prevent the obscene 90-day credit terms insisted upon by the supermarkets as a condition of sale. Many farmers and food manufacturers also report having to pay massive up-front payments to supermarkets, just to secure a contract. Such demands from supermarkets put immense pressure on suppliers and actively discourage small businesses from dealing with them – with the obvious repercussions on price and choice for consumers. In what other industry could you expect to take delivery of produce and not pay for it for three months?

The defining characteristic of David Cameron’s tenure as Conservative leader thus far, has been his inability to reinforce the lofty rhetoric he so neatly employs. “Let’s be honest about the problems facing the country and how we can solve them” said Cameron in his New Year’s message. Many preparing to vote in this year’s General Election will be wondering when he plans to take his own advice…