Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Firms asked to clarify evidence on alcohol pricing

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 March 2010
TESCO and Whyte & Mackay have been asked to re-appear at the Scottish Parliament following claims over mistakes in their evidence about minimum alcohol pricing.
Christine Grahame, convener of the health and sport committee, which is debating the alcohol bill, has written to John Beard, chief executive of the whisky distiller, over his evidence that a 50p per unit lower threshold would result in the loss of 3
00 jobs.

In a letter to Mr Beard, she said: "At no point … did you clarify that this estimate was based on a potential UK-wide minimum price and not on the proposals of the Scottish Government."

And in a letter to Mr McElroy, corporate affairs manager at Tesco, she said: "During evidence to the committee on 10 March, Michael Matheson MSP raised the issues of the support expressed by Tesco in its evidence to the House of Commons health select committee inquiry on alcohol.

"This evidence would seem to be at odds with the views you expressed during your oral evidence session with the committee in relation to Tesco's view on the possible introduction of minimum pricing."

Tesco said it would be happy to clarify its position. Whyte & Mackay was unavailable for comment.

Meanwhile, Scottish drinks giant Diageo has said its fears a double-figure tax rise on alcohol in this year's Budget.

The Scotsman has learned that Diageo representatives have been to Whitehall and Westminster in an effort to see off tax rises reportedly planned by the Treasury.

The increases are believed to be part of Chancellor Alistair Darling's attempts to plug the black hole in the Treasury's finances. It is understood he has also come under pressure from Downing Street to raise taxes in a bid to discourage reckless drinking.

A Diageo source told The Scotsman that such a move would have a massive impact on sales and could hit jobs in Scotland.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Cynicus Unbound,

11/03/2010 23:56:42
Stock up on drams, pre -budget.

Buy any decent malt priced in £teens. I saw Glenmorangie at £19 in Morrisons today. There will be more such pre-budget offers as the supermarkets offload stock that will be unsaleable after the budget -until 31 December.
2

GenePoolDebtCrises,

12/03/2010 01:10:47
re1

If you see anymore great offers let me know! ASDA day tomorrow for me!
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/03/2010 01:22:12
Tesco!, do not turn-up at the Scottish Parliament, do not get involved with one of being ludicrously deluded, or you will come out of the meeting thinking. you have had to much alcohol to drink.

4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/03/2010 01:25:23
Tesco!, do not turn-up at the Scottish Parliament, do not get involved with one of The Ludicrously Deluded!, or you will come out of the meeting thinking. you have had to much alcohol to drink.


5

Old Jim,

Aberdeen 12/03/2010 01:54:43
#3 Charles Linskaill
Get a life you simpleton!
Its you thats deluded
6

Old Jim,

Aberdeen 12/03/2010 01:58:06
' Scottish drinks giant Diageo has said its fears a double-figure tax rise on alcohol in this year's Budget'
Yep! Darling is planning a whopping £ 8 a bottle increase on a bottle of Malt

'A Diageo source told The Scotsman that such a move would have a massive impact on sales and could hit jobs in Scotland'
Not quite - Scottish Whisky industry sells more abroad than it does in the UK and with the pound continually falling, is becoming very cheap to buy to customers overseas, so exports of whisky is likely to increase
7

Marian,

12/03/2010 05:51:54
The unionist inspired campaign against the SNP led Scots government proposal to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol is unravelling as Whyte & Mackay have admitted to the BBC that their claims of hundreds of job losses were based on minimum pricing being introduced throughout the UK when it is actually only proposed for Scotland, and on a minimum price of 50p per unit when the minimum price proposed by the Scots government is actually 40p per unit.
8

Kobi.,

12/03/2010 06:40:07
#7 "when the minimum price proposed by the Scots government is actually 40p per unit."

Utter sh*te. No figure has been proposed by them yet. 40p is merely being used as an illustrative figure to con us all into thinking it won't be too bad.

It could be 30p, 40p, 50p, 70p, £1, £2 or any other figure you care to mention, and it could be different a year after it is introduced, and different again two years later.
9

Grahamski,

Falkirk 12/03/2010 07:21:33
7

Marian,

"..when the minimum price proposed by the Scots government is actually 40p per unit..."

Has the Scottish Executive confirmed the minimum price per unit will be 40p?

I was under the impression 40p was for illustrative purposes and no definite price had as yet been decided upon.

The strident tone of your post suggests that you know differnetly. Perhaps you would care to provide a link to the Scottish Executive's announcement of a 40p per unit minimum price.
10

fife runner,

12/03/2010 08:01:29
much of the posting here suggest we do have a drinks problem. get a life. there is more to lifeb than cheap drink.
11

Dùn Èideann Bully Wee,

12/03/2010 08:28:00
So, Tesco do not know what their position is, giving contradictory statements to both Holyrood and Westminster committees.

Whyte and Mackay is quickly backtracking on their statement given to Holyrood, apologising for “inadvertently” misleading as per their retraction on BBC Scotland yesterday.

Meanwhile, Diageo appear to be concentrating upon the Westminster taxation proposals and following their kicking over the Johnnie Walker issue, is avoiding any comment on the Scottish Government’s proposals.

This is indeed an interesting case study for all of those interested in studying the political process.
12

SwissToni,

A victim of alcohol abuse 12/03/2010 08:47:07
More smoke and mirrors from The Drinks Industry (aka the legal drug barons). If politician are serious about addressing alcohol abuse then perceptions need to be shifted i.e. alcohol is a highly addictive drug and needs to be viewed accordingly. This shift of perception is unlikely to happen while the alcohol lobby is allowed to persist in politics and addressing this matter also needs to be part of the solution

The Drinks Industry enjoys the very privileged position of holding and controlling a monopoly in the (legal) recreational drugs market. It is time they started to recognize the privilege they have been granted and act accordingly (rather than the spin,spin,spin we are continually fed)
13

Gruntfuttock,

12/03/2010 10:30:59
"TESCO and Whyte & Mackay have been asked to re-appear at the Scottish Parliament following claims over mistakes in their evidence about minimum alcohol pricing"

This will be difficult as there is no objective or reliable evidence on minimum pricing. Minimum pricing is an EXPERIMENT.
14

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 12/03/2010 10:46:52
#8:

"it could be different a year after it is introduced, and different again two years later."

Which is the main reason why it must never get into legislation.
15

Kobi.,

12/03/2010 11:22:32
#16

They could introduce it, and when it makes little difference, put it up and up and up, all without further primary legislation.

Or they could realise they have made a mistake, and reduce it without having to pass an act through the Scottish Parliament to scrap ... Sorry, I can't type any more for laughing.
16

notanactivist,

12/03/2010 11:58:50
#7 & #10 - I'm fed up hearing our kind of drivel.

Explain to us all why thinking minimum pricing is a bad idea is something only a Unionist can think, I'd love to hear your logic.
17

Kobi.,

12/03/2010 12:00:55
#18 Cos that's what their briefing sheet from SNP HQ said.
18

notanactivist,

12/03/2010 12:37:46
#19

Cybernat logic: If you oppose mininmum pricing then you also oppose independence.

Real logic: Minimum pricing on alcohol is a wholly different issue to the idea of Scottish independence. The view you hold on one has no baring on the view you hold on another.
19

Number 6,

Germany 12/03/2010 13:08:51
Once again the shoddy evidence against minimum pricing has been exposed.

I wonder if Scots will feel humiliated if minimum pricing is imposed from Westminster? Afterall, it is gaining more and more cross party support South of the border, especially as Labour, try as they might,
cannot for the life of them, produce a "Expert" who is
against it.

Again, it is the useless unionist detatchments at Holyrood who are completley out of touch. It really is so depressing .
20

notanactivist,

12/03/2010 13:58:33
#21 - Again, tell me why it's only Unioinsts in Scotland who think this is a bad idea? Not wanting to see the price of a drink go up doesn't mean you are against independence.

And why is necessary to always listen to 'experts'? Do the views of the general public? If the majority of them are against this measure why not drop it? Likewise, if the majority of them are in favour, then puch it harder. I've never seen a poll sugesting the latter though.

Or do you think an autocratic system where government experts always knows best is the way forward for Scotland?
21

notanactivist,

12/03/2010 14:02:38
#21 - Again, tell me why it's only Unioinsts in Scotland who think this is a bad idea? Not wanting to see the price of a drink go up doesn't mean you are against independence.

And why is it always necessary to listen to 'experts'? Do the views of the general public not count for more? If the majority of them are against this measure why not drop it? Likewise, if the majority of them are in favour, then push it harder. I've never seen a poll sugesting the latter though.

Or do you think an autocratic system where government experts always know best is the way forward for Scotland?

Posted again because of keyboard problems.
22

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 12/03/2010 14:31:43
#22:

"Again, tell me why it's only Unioinsts in Scotland who think this is a bad idea?"

I could do...

...but in the process of doing so, I'd insult a huge number of Nationalists...
23

notanactivist,

12/03/2010 14:48:36
#21 - Is 'evidence' produced by a politician meant to be devoid of any bias? Or is it likely to also be 'shoddy'?
24

Active Sassenach,

Luton, England 12/03/2010 16:50:35
Leaving aside the accuracy of evidence, the health issue is not getting much of a hearing in the posts above. It is important to make policy on correct information and if businesses the size of Tesco have been doing the "alcohol of mass destruction" trick to try and divert the health experts down a blind alley, they should be ashamed. Nonetheless the purpose of the minimum pricing proposal is to reduce alcohol consumption.

Reducing consumption means contracting the market. If acceptable alcohol consumption levels were to be met, as little as half the drink now produced would be sold. How can that not mean loss of jobs in production, transport and distribution? But which is worse? Would Scotland be prouder if it were known as just one big floppy pickled liver? Or would it prefer to invest in re-training some of the drinks industry to the green and manufacturing economy so it became known as an industrial power in its own right?

The health costs of alcohol abuse are astronomical both directly and indirectly through the lawlessness alcohol seems to inspire. All that money could be saved and better used. To boot, much personal tragedy would be spared.

The last remaining thing I do not understand is that, if you have a minimum price for alcohol, who gets it? Who gets the 50p or the 40p? Does it just add to supermarket profits? Why not just add excise duty?
25

Kobi.,

12/03/2010 17:34:42
#26 "Who gets the 50p or the 40p? Does it just add to supermarket profits? Why not just add excise duty?"

The crucial question.

Under the SNP proposals, it will be increased revenue to the supermarkets. The SNP's own impact analysis confirms the anticipated figure.

The reason that it is not done by adding excise duty, is that that is a reserved power to Westminster, and the SNP have no control over this. Instead they have carefully chosen minimum pricing as a wedge issue between Edinburgh and London as part of their independence campaign, knowing full well that there is no prospect of minimum pricing being implemented in Scotland as it is unlawful under EU law, as their own legal advisers have told them.

This is not about controlling alcohol - it is politicking in Scotland. If the SNP was serious, they could agree that excise duty be raised (lawful under EU law) and there would be cross party support for that. But that would fail to meet the SNP's strategic objectives.
26

GenePoolDebtCrises,

12/03/2010 20:39:55
re27

I hardly think that they are going to go into an Independence referendum with the slogan vote for Independence and vote for more expensive booze do you? What a gift that would be to us Unionists?

As it stands I am actually in favour of a minimum pricing policy in relation to the Neds drinks as it is drinkers of quality ales,wines and malts that are subsidising thier bad habits and general lack of taste! Supermarkets are merely passing on the subsidy applied to the cheap booze to other products.

27

Fairfax,

13/03/2010 16:38:16
GenePool (28): "As it stands I am actually in favour of a minimum pricing policy in relation to the Neds drinks"

I'm not a unionist, but can see little point in debating the minimum pricing policy at either Holyrood or Westminster, for the fundamental reason that it contravenes EU law. The EU Commission has already opposed minimum pricing policies for tobacco products in several EU states; see for example:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1820&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en

The same rules apply to alcohol minimum pricing policies, as far as I can see.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.