Aldi and Lidl should be subject to the same rules as major supermarkets
Following a review, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has provisionally decided that Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI should be subject to rules set out in the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010, which already apply to the UK’s biggest supermarket chains.
The Order is designed to stop ‘Large Grocery Retailers’ (LGRs) from using land agreements to make it harder for rival supermarkets to open nearby – in particular through the use of restrictive covenants and exclusivity arrangements. The rules ensure supermarkets compete freely – and ultimately ensure shoppers have more choice about where to buy, and how much to pay for, their groceries.
- CMA proposes to prevent Aldi and Lidl from blocking rival supermarkets opening close to their stores
- Provisional decisions find that Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI are ‘Large Grocery Retailers’
- CMA is seeking views before making a final decision
Following a review, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has provisionally decided that Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI should be subject to rules set out in the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010, which already apply to the UK’s biggest supermarket chains.
The Order is designed to stop ‘Large Grocery Retailers’ (LGRs) from using land agreements to make it harder for rival supermarkets to open nearby – in particular through the use of restrictive covenants and exclusivity arrangements. The rules ensure supermarkets compete freely – and ultimately ensure shoppers have more choice about where to buy, and how much to pay for, their groceries.
6 comments:
I find it interesting that governments interfere in so much that isn't their business but tend to neglect duties they do have, such as opposing monopolies and cartels. Mind you, no Labour government will ever oppose Trade Union monopolies or cartels.
In my town Aldi and Lidl are on opposite sides of the road.
I can imagine the management standing in their offices, staring across the road at each other, planning diabolical vengeance over the price of ginger nut biscuits.
Nothing about stopping supermarkets from pricing out high street shops, smallerchains, etc.
Canterbury high street being a prime example of this nefarious practice.
As for choice. That really is a joke as all supermarkets sell the samebrands as each other. I know let's nationalise the brands and the supermarkets.
dearieme - government interference often comes across as a way to avoid tackling more difficult issues they should be tackling. The failure of Labour governments to oppose Trade Union monopolies is an example. Or the NHS.
Mike - that must be unusual, I've never seen them that close. They seem much the same to me, but I've never been able to compare them that easily.
Bill - I think supermarkets selling the same brands may be one reason why they have 'own brand' products, to disguise the similarity.
The 'rule' and the 'review' are there to ensure that the rules are applied 'fairly' (and cannot be challenged in a court of law). Plus there will have been a great deal of bureaucratic effort and meetings required. Jobs for the boys - side effect or main benefit?
DJ - a review is the main benefit I'd say. They know it needs a review largely because Aldi and Lidl have grown so much, so it would be useful to analyse how they know the review needs doing.
It sounds as if the rules could be automatic - beyond certain parameters they are applied and that's it, no need for a review.
Post a Comment