Sir; The Competition Commission's provisional decision on remedies has failed to address the pricing anomalies that were uncovered during the inquiry. The commission has found evidence that our members pay up to 16% more for goods than can be extracted by the supermarkets. The scale of this imbalance makes true competition on the high street impossible, and we had expected that the inquiry team would have got to grips with this in its proposals. Also, the planning measures outlined as well as ending the use of restrictive covenants on land use only favour the big players and will reinforce the oligopoly situation that currently exists. The 'competition test' that may be applied by local authorities would only cover large stores of more than 10,000 sq ft and does nothing to check dominance by a proliferation of c-stores owned by the big four. The idea of introducing an ombudsman may have some merit, but only if this office is given the power to operate proactively, is able to guarantee anonymity to suppliers who may be intimidated by the 'climate of fear' situation and impose fines on offenders. We would also expect an ombudsman to ensure that suppliers' price structures are fair to the wholesaler/independent retailer channel. The proposal to extend the scope of the Supermarkets Code of Practice to all retailers with a turnover of more than £1bn is unnecessary in our view. The problem the original code sought so ineffectively to redress stemmed from the abuse of buyer power by the big four - and that remains the rightful target for any new code or regulator. We will continue to influence the commission on these issues and we are working closely with the Association of Convenience Stores to press for measures to ensure fairness in the market.