Further memorandum by ASDA (AL 22A)
Ahead of our opportunity to submit oral evidence
to the committee, we respectfully ask you to consider the following
written evidence from ASDA which explains our position on the
main aspects of the Committee's terms of reference and some of
our wider views on the retailing of alcohol. We have also included
as an Annex to this evidence our views on the Government's proposed
mandatory code.
We understand the terms of reference for these hearings
are to be focused on:
— The scale of ill-health related to alcohol
misuse.
— The consequences for the NHS.
— Central government policy.
— The role of the NHS and other bodies
including local government, the voluntary sector, police, the
alcohol industry, and those responsible for the advertising and
promotion of alcohol.
— Solutions, including whether the drinking
culture in England should change, and if so, how.
ASDA is the UK's second largest supermarket
operating close to 370 stores (some of which are non food),
employing 170,000 colleagues, and serving over 17 M
customers every week.
We have always been willing to work with Government
to tackle alcohol misuse. We are ready to create a new way of
selling alcohol, but this new way must not disadvantage the majority
of drinkers who consume responsibly and do not cause public disorder.
1. ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION
AND HEALTH
The debate has traditionally focussed on the
link between excessive alcohol consumption and crime and anti
social behaviour. The practice of binge drinking has clear health
impacts for the individuals concerned, for the health service
and for wider society through antisocial behaviour and the resulting
strain on public services.
There has, however, been an increasing interest
in the long term health implications of regular over consumption
above recommended daily and weekly guideline amounts. This concern
applies not only to younger age groups traditionally associated
with binge drinking but also to middle aged and retired groups
who are not generally associated with crime and antisocial behaviour.
To date the approach of Government has been
to target policies at reducing the health and social consequences
of binge drinking. Recent interventions by the Chief Medical Officer
in support of minimum pricing has concentrated more on the need
for an across the board reduction in alcohol consumption, which
it is argued is best achieved through pricing mechanisms.
While we understand the concerns of health practitioners
and policy makers about the impact of excessive alcohol consumption
in the UK, we do not believe that the answer lies in pricing mechanisms.
In fact, we believe that there is a real danger that an overly
simplistic concentration on price as the key driving factor of
consumption risks missing some of the social and cultural factors
which have a much greater impact on patterns of alcohol consumption
in the UK.
Consumption is declining
Alcohol consumption in the UK is decreasing.
Recent statistics from HMRC show that there has been a significant
decline in per capita consumption from a high point in 2004 to
2008. In fact overall consumption reduced by 5.1%.[20]
This decline in consumption has been seen in all alcohol categories
with the exception of cider. Beer is down 8%, wine down 3.6%,
spirits down 3% and Flavoured Alcoholic Beverages (FABs) down
by an even greater 22.4%. This decline has not received the attention
it deserves.
There appears to be a paradox whereby declining
alcohol consumption is not mirrored in improving alcohol related
health statistics. Neither has there been any concerted effort
to map reductions in consumption with increasing duty on alcohol
over the same period. These are issues which we believe require
further investigation if there is to be a rational debate on the
link between alcohol consumption and the health of the wider population.
Patterns of consumption have changed
To understand changing patterns of alcohol consumption
in the UK it is first important to understand the wider social
and cultural changes seen in the past decade. There has been a
significant shift away from on trade to off trade sales of alcohol.
Since 2001 household consumption figures show that alcohol
consumption in the home has risen from 735ml per person per week
to 772ml in 2007. Over the same period, consumption outside the
home has reduced from 733ml to 503ml While this is a significant
shift, it is our belief that there is a common misconception that
this has been driven purely by price competition between supermarkets
and pubs.
Evidence would suggest that the traditional
pub business model has faltered as it has proven inflexible in
meeting growing costs in its supply chain and operating model.
As a consequence price increases for customers have resulted as
pubs are forced to make up lost margins through higher prices
for customers. Supermarkets have taken much of the blame for the
failure of the traditional pub model to compete. We do not believe
that this blame is accurate. As the evidence suggests it is simply
a matter of increasing charges for customers by the on-trade sector
and changing customer preferences.
Social and cultural change behind changes in consumption
The decline of on trade business is not the
fault of supermarkets. It is plain to see that there has been
a wider cultural shift away from the pub as the hub of the community.
This has been exacerbated by some external factors including the
ban on smoking in public places. Increasingly we hear from our
customers of their desire to socialise with friends and family
in what they see as a safer, more controlled home environment.
Fear of antisocial behaviour, greater awareness and enforcement
of drink driving laws, the growth of dinner party culture and
an explosion in digital broadcasting and compelling TV scheduling
are just some of the factors driving the growth in consumption
of alcohol in the home.
The family home or garden is increasingly seen
by our customers as their preferred "destination" for
socialising in groups which can include wider family and friends
as well as children—often not properly accommodated in pub
settings. It has been suggested by some that pubs are a safe,
well regulated drinking environment and that shifts to home drinking
are therefore negative because the home setting is unregulated.
That is not the view of many of our customers who believe the
opposite to be the case. They view drinking with family and friends
in the home as an inherently safer choice than drinking in town
and city centres which they see as a riskier option, bringing
them face to face with antisocial behaviour and crime.
Drinking in the home is now an established social
norm. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report A minimum income
standard for Britain[21]
sought to establish what the public considered was necessary to
achieve an acceptable standard of living.
The report considers four different household
types: single working age, pensioner couple, couple with two children
and lone parent with one child. Focus groups decided that for
each household type some level of spending on alcohol was necessary
to achieve an acceptable standard of living (p.18). In the case
of a couple with two children, it was decided that only alcohol
for consumption in the home was a necessity (p.33).
Their findings remain true in this year's report[22]
and additionally the report notes that focus groups suggested
there is now a lower expectation about how often working age people
go out for entertainment.[23]
We believe that these wider social and cultural
changes better explain the shift away from pubs to home drinking
than a simplistic argument on price competition.
The importance of value—not penalising the
responsible majority
We believe that the majority of our customers
purchase and consume alcohol responsibly. An irresponsible minority
are responsible for the vast majority of alcohol related costs
to society. In the UK 7% of the population drink 33% of the alcohol.
We believe that this requires a targeted approach which identifies
those who have a disproportionate impact on society and attempts
to address their behaviour based on a proper understanding of
the social and cultural factors which influence that behaviour.
We believe that policy makers should be careful
not to adopt blanket policies which punish the majority for the
behaviour of a minority.
We are concerned that the most responsible,
law-abiding consumers are the ones who will lose out, and that
individuals who create public order disturbances will continue
to do so. In particular, it would be a severe unintended consequence
for low income shoppers already hit by rising utility costs, rising
fuel and food prices if new regulations were to hit responsible
drinkers in lower income groups.
Indeed there is evidence that lower income groups
are not responsible for the bulk of alcohol consumption, but are
least able to afford alcohol. Therefore, low income households
are disproportionately affected by rising prices and tax increases.
The General Household Survey 2007 reported the percentage
of adults who drank more than eight (men) six (women) units on
at least one day in the last week by household income bands. The
average for all income groups was 20%. However, for households
with less than £200 per week income the percentage was
11%. This figure rose steadily by income bracket to 28% for households
with a weekly income above £1,000.[24]
Raising the price of alcohol will have a disproportionate effect
on low income households. In a time of recession, the concept
of affordability is not as relevant to those on low incomes for
whom very few luxury goods are truly "affordable".
The introduction of new price controls such
as a ban on promotions or minimum pricing would further reduce
the disposable income of low income groups but, unlike with duty,
would not deliver a single additional penny of revenue to the
state.
We would urge the Committee to recognise the
benefits of competition to a whole swathe of customers from low
income backgrounds who purchase and consume alcohol in a responsible
manner.
2. PRICING AND
CONSUMPTION
There are many myths in the debate around supermarkets
and alcohol pricing. Some commentators have said that our lager
is cheaper than our water. This is not the case. Our Smart Price
lager is priced at 91p for four 440 ml cans—52p per
litre (and we have reduced the strength of this lager to 2% ABV).
A 2-litre bottle of Evian water is 78p—39p per litre. So,
even our cheapest lager is more expensive than Evian. And it is
even more expensive than our Smart Price water, which is priced
at 13p per 2-litre bottle—6.5p per litre.
Others make the claim that supermarkets are
promoting alcohol at pocket money prices. Yet supermarkets have
led the charge on underage sales through the establishment of
Challenge 25 to reduce the availability of alcohol to those
under 18. It is unfortunate that some commentators have sought
to muddy the waters on price and availability to under 18s. A
worrying number of under 18s consume alcohol sourced for free
from parents or friends and therefore the issue of price does
not seem to be a key factor on whether under 18s wish to and succeed
in consuming alcohol.
Promotional activity
On 1 September 2009 the Licensing
(Scotland) Act came into force and introduced a ban on all happy
hours and promotions in the on trade in recognition of the fact
that certain promotions in the on trade were "irresponsible"
because they encouraged people to consume more alcohol in a shorter
space of time.
There is a significant difference between promotional
activity in pubs and clubs and that in shops. Promotions in the
on trade are de facto about immediate consumption—an additional
bottle of beer, free pint or glass of wine, or double for the
price of a single shot cannot be taken off the premises. It can
only be consumed there and then by the person or persons receiving
the deal.
Promotions in the off trade on the other hand
are often used by customers who are seeking good value but who
purchase the alcohol with a view to consuming it over a longer
period of time or with a wider group of family and friends. When
a customer takes advantage of a quantity discount, it does not
mean that they will consume that alcohol immediately. Indeed many
customers stock up and consume alcohol over weeks or months. That
is a fundamental difference between promotional activity in the
on and off trade. Contrary to some media reports, ASDA does not
run Buy One Get One Free offers on alcohol. We do offer value
to customers on individual lines and through some quantity discounts
such as three bottles of wine for £10. We do not believe
this is an irresponsible promotion. Indeed the promotion allows
customers to benefit from higher quality wines for a lower cost.
As stated in our evidence on the mandatory code,
we are concerned at proposals for local discretion on promotion
bans in the off trade which we believe would distort competition,
inconvenience and confuse customers, raise costs to business and
lead to an unfair postcode lottery.
Minimum pricing
It is worth reiterating that the notion alcohol
has become cheaper is actually caused by an increase in affordability—it
is not that alcohol in itself has got cheaper. Government published
data shows alcohol has actually increased in price. Since 1987 alcohol
price inflation has exceeded RPI and has risen substantially more
than food inflation. The difficulty is that average earnings have
gone up faster than RPI making alcohol more affordable.
The Committee has already heard evidence in
favour of the introduction of minimum pricing of alcohol and restrictions
on promotional activity.
We believe that there is a real danger that
minimum pricing is seen as the "silver bullet" and that
an over concentration on price mechanisms neglects some of the
much wider social and cultural factors behind alcohol consumption.
It is self evident that there is some link between price and consumption,
however we believe that this case has been significantly overstated.
Ultimately the extent to which minimum pricing (if it were to
be introduced) would drive changes in consumption would depend
on the level at which it is set. We are sceptical that at levels
of 40p or 50p per unit significant behavioural changes would follow.
All that such a price would do is penalise hard working families
on low incomes.
Minimum pricing is a system which exists in
no comparable country on a nationwide basis. It is based on theoretical
modelling which does little to take into account the prevailing
cultural and social norms in the UK. Price elasticities are affected
by many factors and, we would argue, apply in differing degrees
to different groups in society. We believe that there are many
unintended consequences of minimum pricing which make a seemingly
simple concept a much less effective policy solution than theoretical
modelling results might suggest.
As previously stated, alcohol consumption is
declining in the UK even at a time when competition and good value
deals are seen across the off trade sector. Arguments for minimum
pricing essentially follow the logic that price drives consumption
and consumption leads to health problems across the population.
Yet it is not a straightforward relationship. Statistics on alcohol
related mortality in different parts of the UK clearly show a
much higher rate in Scotland than the rest of the UK with a significantly
higher rate of increase in recent years at a time when trends
have levelled off in England. This is puzzling as average incomes
in Scotland remain significantly below the UK average, yet alcohol
prices in Scotland are in line with those across the UK. ASDA
sells products at a single price no matter where our stores are
located. Therefore alcohol is a proportionately more expensive
commodity to people in Scotland than England, yet alcohol related
morbidity rates are higher. There are clearly other social and
cultural factors at play.
Proponents of minimum pricing have used competing
arguments to supports its introduction. On the one hand it has
been described as merely raising the price of the cheapest alcohol.
On the other it has been described as a solution to the problem
of over consumption among the entire population including middle
aged and older drinkers who are not generally associated with
the purchase of the cheapest alcohol or with antisocial behaviour.
Indeed the subject of rising consumption in the over 45s age group
raises an interesting question about the link between price and
consumption. This group generally has higher levels of disposable
income than younger age groups and therefore there is a real question
as to what extent their consumption is driven by price. Would
a 20 pence increase in a bottle of wine really reduce consumption
in this target group? Are there other factors involved in rising
consumption among this group?
We recognise the concern among policy makers
about sales of the cheapest alcoholic products. In an active and
competitive market place, it is difficult for any one retailer
to unilaterally address pricing without putting itself in a position
of competitive disadvantage. At the same time, it would be illegal
for supermarkets to get together and discuss multilateral increases
in price. If the Government wants a system whereby it is illegal
to sell below the level of alcohol duty plus VAT then this would
have to be mandated.
This is entirely a matter for government to
consider. However, we would argue that while a system of minimum
pricing has the disadvantage of returning no additional revenues
to the state—effectively privatising the profit and socialising
the loss—a system of duty plus VAT allows for revenues to
be returned to the state and invested in alcohol education, awareness,
diversion and treatment programmes.
Personal Responsibility
Promotions and pricing are not in themselves
irresponsible, it is how individuals consume the alcohol that
they purchase which is important. Many of our customers take advantage
of offers and consume the alcohol responsibly. We accept that
there are instances where some abuse alcohol purchased from the
off trade. However, does that mean that nobody should be able
to take advantage of good deals? Many of our customers have told
us they believe that pricing mechanisms that increase prices for
customers smack of a "nanny state" approach and they
are sceptical that these measures will tackle the real problem
drinkers (see Appendix One). To truly change the culture of drinking,
customers need to believe that changes will be effective and are
being done for the right reasons. There is a danger that too much
of a reliance on price misses the point about personal responsibility.
Whether a can of lager costs 50p or £3 is no excuse
for somebody to drink to excess, or engage in anti social behaviour.
3. INFORMATION,
EDUCATION AND
RESPONSIBLE RETAILING
At Asda we recognise that we have a duty to
be a responsible retailer of alcohol and to work with Government
to ensure that our customers are able to make informed choices
when they shop with us. We believe that changes to the drinking
culture in the UK must be driven by improved education, increased
awareness, diversionary activities, and quick and effective treatment
for those who have alcohol problems.
We would like to reiterate some of the actions
we have taken which demonstrate that we understand our responsibilities
as retailers of alcohol. ASDA has already delivered eight key
voluntary measures to ensure that we live up to these responsibilities.
These include measures which are designed to reduce underage sales,
reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and educate our customers
about responsible drinking and health. They include:
1. the first national roll-out of Challenge 25;
2. stopping selling alcohol at 100 of our
town centre stores between midnight and 6am (as highlighted in
Policing in the 21st Century);[25]
3. a fund to help educate young people on alcohol
misuse;
4. a doubling to 4,000 independent test
purchases of our own people per year;
5. the delisting of some products and reduction
in alcohol content of others;
6. introduction of the new UK Department of Health
(DH) recommended wine label on our own brand wines—the first
retailer to do this, and well ahead of the main brands of winemakers;
7. regularly providing information on responsible
drinking through the ASDA Magazine, which has a readership of
5 million throughout the UK; and
8. The banning of "% extra free" alcohol
packs.
Increased display of health messages
Asda has pioneered the use of labels on our
own brand wines to communicate the number of units in a small
glass, a large glass, and a bottle of our own brand wine. In addition,
we have already incorporated the DH pregnancy message on many
of our labels.
We have a strong record of providing health
information to customers on a range of issues such as alcohol
and nutrition. We give information to customers through point
of sale material and articles in our monthly "ASDA Magazine
" read by approximately five M people. It has the highest
circulation of any women's monthly title in the UK and was read
by almost a quarter of UK households in 2008. In addition, we
update our website with sensible drinking messages, especially
around Christmas and New Year when consumption is traditionally
higher.
We happily support any attempt to give customers
more information on sensible drinking as we believe that education
for customers is key to tackling this cultural problem. Our concern
is that a prescriptive approach may spoil the good work that is
already underway through initiatives such as Drinkaware and the
Campaign for Smarter Drinking, where we are already linking sensible
consumption levels to the DH labels on products.
We are financial supporters of the "Campaign
for Smarter Drinking" and have already committed to placing
point of sale in the alcohol aisles with responsible drinking
messages included. We offer our support to any educational aims
in Government policy, but we would urge the Government to accept
this Campaign for Smarter Drinking point of sale material as suitable
in meeting these aims.
We believe that there is an opportunity to do
more to educate customers about the health implications of alcohol
consumption through product labelling. Traffic light labelling
on food products has improved our customers' understanding of
the food that they eat and the need for a balanced diet. We believe
that there is scope to extend a similar system to alcohol products
in order to improve awareness and point customers towards lower
alcohol products. There is also an opportunity to choice edit
before the point of retail by looking again at the potential scope
to reduce the alcoholic content of a range of products. For example
Asda has already reduced the alcohol content of our smart price
beer.
ASDA's Social Hurdle
We support the idea of a "social hurdle"
approach requiring retailers to have a proactive approach
to the tackling of alcohol misuse through a series of individual
initiatives. There is no reason why such an approach could not
include a strong health element.
In summary we propose that instead of imposing
any kind of financial levy on retailers, or price interventions
which raise the cost of alcohol for customers, policy makers should
instead consider a social responsibility hurdle that:
(i) must apply to all licensed premises;
(ii) must allow for additional expenditure by
retailers on managing alcohol sales to be offset. Otherwise, we
will see a race to the bottom in terms of important and creative
voluntary measures by business;
(iii) must be mindful of extra cost burdens on
our customers; and
(iv) must apply to the producers and distributors
of alcohol products elsewhere in the profit chain.
The potential benefit of the social hurdle approach
is that it creates real incentives for those involved in the sale
of alcohol to come up with creative and added value measures to
tackle the misuse and abuse of alcohol. It avoids the introduction
of new taxes which would lead to higher prices for consumers.
As an example of the type of social responsibility
work that we have funded, we recently gave £20,000 to
the new community disorder bus in Toryglen in Glasgow and hosted
a major community event for its launch. We have also made a financial
commitment to a bus in Burnley in east Lancashire. These projects
are aimed at diverting young people away from alcohol by giving
them alternative alcohol free activities in their own communities.
They could also have a role in educating young people about the
health implications of over consumption.
We would suggest that the recent experience
on carrier bags offers an insight into the willingness of business
to work hard to meet voluntary targets. Government and industry
set a 50% reduction target in bag use in our stores. The industry
as a whole only just failed to meet what was a challenging and
difficult target which required significant effort, financial
investment and engagement with customers. Different retailers
were able to employ different measures which fitted with their
business models in order to meet the same goal of reducing bag
use. There are good lessons to be learned from this approach and
in principle there are few reasons why a similar approach could
not be applied to social responsibility and alcohol.
Reducing availability for under 18s
It is clear that early exposure to alcohol can
have a disproportionate effect on health as children's bodies
are unable to cope with alcohol in the same way as adults. Children
who start consuming alcohol at an early age can face significant
health challenges in later life and there is growing evidence
of much earlier incidences of liver disease.
That is why it is so important to reduce the
availability of alcohol to under 18s. Asda was the first national
retailer to introduce a Challenge 25 scheme where proof of
age is required by any customer who looks under the age of 25.
This has now been adopted across the industry.
It has been suggested in the mandatory code
that Challenge 21 should become mandatory for all retailers.
We do not support moves which would move back from the current
Challenge 25 position which we believe is far more robust
and easy to administer by store colleagues. We would therefore
suggest that if such a scheme were to become mandatory it should
follow the existing Challenge 25 system established by retailers
through the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group (RASG) on a voluntary
basis to tackle under age sales. Many retailers are now moving
to challenge 25 to reduce age recognition problems further—following
the lead established by Asda. We wholly support this move to Challenge
25, and we believe that all retailers of alcohol (whether on or
off trade should adopt this scheme).
Paul Kelly
External Affairs and Corporate Responsibility Director
September 2009
Annex 1
VIEWS ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MANDATORY CODE
SUMMARY OF
ASDA'S POSITION
ON THE
ALCOHOL MANDATORY
CODE
On the whole we believe it contains a sensible
set of measures designed to help tackle the problems caused by
the misuse of alcohol by the minority. We do however have serious
concerns about some aspects of the code.
— We are against a ban on promotions for
alcohol which is locally set. A locally controlled minimum price
is dysfunctional on competition grounds. Two stores—most
likely within a ten minute drive time of each other—would
not be able to effectively compete if one has a local ban on promotions
which does not affect the other. (Ten minutes drive-time is the
Competition Commission definition of a relevant competition market
in grocery).
— A locally sanctioned promotions ban would
not be proportionate in the amount of burden placed on business.
A multiple retailer operating a single price point across the
UK will find this logistically exceptionally burdensome to implement.
— A ban on promotions disproportionately
affects those on low incomes and is unfair. A severe economic
recession combined with price controls has real unintended consequences
for customers.
— Those affluent customers with access
to the internet will be able to escape these promotional bans
(as they will not have to visit a retail premises) and that cannot
be fair to the consumer or to non-internet retailers.
— Actions such as those envisaged in the
code could seriously distort the local grocery market. The code
also makes no mention of the rewards given through loyalty cards
and money off vouchers. These factors must be considered if there
is any possibility of a level playing field between retailers.
A local promotions ban that discriminates between legitimate business
models no longer has alcohol abuse control at its heart, but becomes
a dysfunctional disruption of the market. We are very concerned
that local authorities will be tempted to avoid action against
retailers operating loyalty cards because intervention would be
too complicated. Councils will focus efforts on "easy targets"
ie those retailers with straightforward promotions.
— We believe that if the Government wants
a floor level of duty plus VAT, then this would have to be mandated.
We know that this could never be achieved through a voluntary
agreement.
— We believe that local licensing conditions
should be formed out of a discussion between local licensing officials
and individual retailers about the most sensible conditions for
that area, and not based on blunt economic tools like a promotions
ban. For example, consider our "Eastlands model". We
have a store in Manchester—next to the City of Manchester
football stadium. This store will have particular local needs
which can't be dealt with through a national scheme of promotional
controls—even though these may be locally administered.
The proposed local conditions are too blunt a tool and create
competition issues which are not adequately dealt with.
— It is essential that in the event promotions
were to be banned that guidance notes be issued to licensing authorities
making it clear how the ban should be implemented to avoid a market
distortion. (The planning regime offers a potential model in PPS6,
advice that must be followed by councils in order to deliver the
objectives of the national policy). We set out conditions that
local authorities should follow if they choose to ban promotions
later in our response.
— We believe that a refusals register would
be unworkable, too prescriptive, and against the principles of
better regulation. Specifically, it is not appropriate to the
risk posed and is excessively burdensome.
— ASDA has represented value for over 40
years and is sincerely opposed to lower income consumers bearing
the brunt of these proposed changes. In this time of recession,
we do not think that hard-pressed, law-abiding customers should
be asked to pay more for alcohol as a result of a promotional
ban. We strongly believe that competition on price and on promotions
is positive for consumers. They have clearly told us that they
would be concerned if Government initiatives were to put this
at risk—please see appendix one to see our survey of 10,500 customers.
APPENDIX ONE
ASDA customer survey. We commissioned an independent
market research organisation to ask 10,000 of our customers
their views on the key proposals put forward by the Scottish Government.
The results of that survey are shown below:
RESULTS OF
ASDA CUSTOMER SURVEY
This survey consisted of 10,109 face-to-face
interviews conducted with ASDA shoppers in 30 stores throughout
Scotland. All interviews were conducted between 15 and 29 August
2008. The research was conducted by Market Research Society-trained
interviewers from the Ace Fieldwork market research agency.
1. The Scottish Government is concerned that
alcohol is currently too cheap. The Government wants to set a
fixed minimum price for alcohol to reduce the amount people drink.
What do you think of this proposal, do you agree or disagree with
it?
| 1. Agree | 3,385
| 33.5% |
| 2. Disagree | 6,170 |
61% |
| 3. Don't Know | 549 |
5.4% |
| 4. No answer | 5 | 0.0%
|
| |
|
2. The Government is also proposing to ban multi-product
promotions (eg "3 for 2" and "Buy one Get
one Free") to reduce the amount people drink. What do you
think of this proposal, do you agree or disagree with it?
| 1. Agree | 2,978 | 29.5%
|
| 2. Disagree | 6,818 |
67.4% |
| 3. Don't Know | 309 |
3.1% |
| 4. No answer | 4 | 0.0%
|
| |
|
3. Of the two proposals outlined above (minimum pricing,
and the banning of promotions), which do you think would be the
most effective in reducing alcohol consumption?
| 1. Minimum Pricing | 1,772
| 17.5% |
| 2. Banning Promotions | 1,997
| 19.8% |
| 3. Neither | 6,017 |
59.5% |
| 4. Other | 284 | 2.8%
|
| 5. Both | 27 | 0.3%
|
| 6. No answer | 12 | 0.1%
|
| |
|
4. The Scottish Government is considering that from September
2009, supermarkets would not be able to sell alcohol together
with other items. This would mean customers would buy alcohol
at a separate checkout and make two separate transactions. Do
you agree with this proposal?
| 1. Agree | 2,190 | 21.7%
|
| 2. Disagree | 7,405 |
73.3% |
| 3. Don't Know | 507 |
5.0% |
| 4. No answer | 7 | 0.1%
|
| |
|
20
HMRC/BBPA, Alcohol consumption, 1990-2008, litres per head of
100% alcohol Back
21
Joseph Rowntree Foundation-A minimum income standard for Britain,
July 2008. p18 Back
22
Joseph Rowntree Foundation-A minimum income standard for Britain,
July 2009. p24 Back
23
Joseph Rowntree Foundation-A minimum income standard for Britain,
July 2009. p21 Back
24
ONS Statistics on Alcohol, England 2009, Table 2.12 Adults1 drinking
in the last week, by usual gross weekly household income and gender,
20072,3 Back
25
Home Affairs Select Committee-Policing in the 21st Century,
November 2008. p38 Back
| 
