§ Mrs. McCurleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of tampons.
162Wbeen lost at sea over the last 10 years; what were the causes in each case; what recommendations for future safety of fishing vessels were made by the enquiries into these losses; and what responses the Government made to each of these recommendations.
§ Mr. RidleyThe number and nature of casualties of fishing vessels are published in the Department's annual return "Casualties to Vessels and Accidents to Men". The following table sets out the figures of total losses of fishing vessels for the years 1975 to 1984:
§ Mr. HowardThe report was published on 15 January.
The commission found that the market shares of Tambrands Ltd. and Southalls (Birmingham) Ltd. constitute a monopoly situation in relation to the supply of tampons.
It found, however, that since the commission's last inquiry in 1980 various changes in actual and prospective competitive conditions had occurred, notably the marked improvement and reduction in prices of external sanitary protection products (both relative to tampon prices and in real terms), the increasing importance of retailers' own brands of tampons and the increased probability of effective competition from new entrants to the tampon market. This, it considered, would be encouraged by, for example, the recent decision of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to allow television advertising of sanitary protection on an experimental basis, which would facilitate the establishment of new brands and the marketing of new external sanitary protection products in more direct competition with tampons.
However, the commission had little doubt that the two companies still had a degree of discretion in the pricing of tampons such that the prices of their main brands were higher than would be the case if their market power were less.
It was found that there were no natural or artificially created barriers to entry to the tampon market, and no restrictive or anti-competitive practices on the part of the two companies.
The commission concluded that it was more beneficial in this case that the currently rewarding profit levels should act as a magnet to attract new suppliers to the market than that the risk should be taken through measures of price regulation of harming existing smaller competitors and inhibiting new entry. The report's conclusion was therefore that the prices charged or proposed to be charged for tampons could be expected not to operate against the public interest.
I accept the commission's report. Because the commission found that the practices under reference did 163W not operate against the public interest, there is no statutory basis to take further action on any of these practices. I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to release Tambrands and Southalls from their undertaking given in 1981 to provide him with certain information to enable him to monitor the tampon market.