The Newsagents Federation is calling for the newspaper and magazine industry to be referred to the Competition Commission and will be heartened by the views expressed by Baroness Kingsmill, a former deputy chair of the Commission, in the latest issue of Management Today.
"All markets require regulation," she writes. "Market forces are red in tooth and claw and, unregulated, will lead to the survival of the fittest monopolist."
Regulators usually restrict their findings to considerations of pure consumer benefits, which are "thought to be synonymous with the public interest". However, Lady Kingsmill argues that there are clear distinctions to the interests of consumers and of citizens. She also says that regulators had fettered themselves. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 they could have been taking into account criteria such as the distribution of employment and enterprise around the UK - or environmental issues. In more than 20 cases she took part in these considerations were never used and they no longer exist under the Enterprise Act 2002.
How might the issue be judged? Take the media, she says. Consumers might want the latest products and the lowest prices. Citizens might want free speech and privacy. Business interests would be profit and access to the market. Social interests might be around public taste and methods used in news gathering.
The public interest needs to be moved up the regulatory agenda, she argues.
"Is it appropriate to destroy a local economy, losing jobs and specialist skills..." she asks in relation to the Thameslink train contract going to Germany rather than Derby.
At a smaller level, the local independent shopkeeper is asking the same question as the supply chain appears to favour the big supermarket operators. Is it appropriate that a supply chain can destroy my business, he or she may ask.
What is perhaps more helpful about Lady Kingsmill's article is her articulation about the beliefs of the people who sit on the commission. What retailers need to do is to persuade regulators to use their powers across the broad spectrum of society and not just a narrow focus on the "average" consumer.
"All markets require regulation," she writes. "Market forces are red in tooth and claw and, unregulated, will lead to the survival of the fittest monopolist."
Regulators usually restrict their findings to considerations of pure consumer benefits, which are "thought to be synonymous with the public interest". However, Lady Kingsmill argues that there are clear distinctions to the interests of consumers and of citizens. She also says that regulators had fettered themselves. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 they could have been taking into account criteria such as the distribution of employment and enterprise around the UK - or environmental issues. In more than 20 cases she took part in these considerations were never used and they no longer exist under the Enterprise Act 2002.
How might the issue be judged? Take the media, she says. Consumers might want the latest products and the lowest prices. Citizens might want free speech and privacy. Business interests would be profit and access to the market. Social interests might be around public taste and methods used in news gathering.
The public interest needs to be moved up the regulatory agenda, she argues.
"Is it appropriate to destroy a local economy, losing jobs and specialist skills..." she asks in relation to the Thameslink train contract going to Germany rather than Derby.
At a smaller level, the local independent shopkeeper is asking the same question as the supply chain appears to favour the big supermarket operators. Is it appropriate that a supply chain can destroy my business, he or she may ask.
What is perhaps more helpful about Lady Kingsmill's article is her articulation about the beliefs of the people who sit on the commission. What retailers need to do is to persuade regulators to use their powers across the broad spectrum of society and not just a narrow focus on the "average" consumer.
Comments
Post a Comment