The commission now has to face up the crucial issues at the heart of the inquiry or it will just be a missed opportunity for genuine choice

After a frenzy of largely inaccurate speculation, the publication of the Competition Commission's working paper on remedies came late last Friday. Having spent a weekend reading the 300-page report, we are now in a position to properly analyse the facts, not the spin.

Firstly, the commission has rowed back from the initial suggestion that the "need" test should be scrapped. This is an important line in the sand, and reward for those who have argued that the imperatives of planning and competition are entirely different.

Cynics have suggested that the commission's silence is irrelevant and will not stop the government announcing their reform of the 'need' test later this month. But this misses the point. The commission was always barking up the wrong tree by looking in this area. It was trying to make decisions about planning on the basis of the dogmatic and unsubstantiated mantra about the 'need' test being harmful to consumer choice, and concluded it is a matter for the government to decide.

We know the public and planners support planning laws. The government must not accede to the will of the out-of- town development lobby for whom two new stores a week won't satisfy their appetite for growth.

As for the proposed competition test, the devil will be in the detail, but as long as this is explicitly an additional planning test, then we welcome it. We also welcome the decision not to force the sale of land banks, which is good news for all retailers who believe that building hundreds of superstores will make the market less competitive. Overall, no-one could use the decisions on planning to characterise the commission as cheerleaders for planning liberalisation.

Secondly, the commission focused on remedies to regulate buying power. Unfortunately, they have been painfully timid, suggesting the Supermarket Code of Practice should be replaced with a strengthened Grocery Suppliers Code of Practice (spot the difference?). This could be the superficial and half-hearted solution that we feared.

The commission has established that a buying price differential of 16% exists, but hasn't formed the link with how this will affect choice and competition. It is inconceivable that a new entrepreneur could enter the UK market and become one of its superpowers. The commission must face up to this crucial competition issue. Unless they do, this inquiry will be remembered as a missed opportunity to promote genuine choice and competition.n

James Lowman is the CEO of the Association of Convenience Stores