Poley's Position
Can you clarify your recent comments comparing the discounting of beer to that of Fairy Liquid?
The point I was making about Fairy liquid was that dropping the price does not increase the size of the market. With alcohol, someone could take advantage of the offer and drink the product at their leisure - or they could drink it twice as quickly. Price obviously affects purchasing patterns but we have no idea about consumption patterns.
One thing we don't accept at the Portman Group is that price is the key determinant of alcohol misuse. There is no point in using that blunt instrument in order to make alcohol less affordable for all.I would defend the supermarkets' right to sell alcohol for relatively low margins. However, I feel that the practice of below-cost selling and loss-leading are separate tactics and deserve to be looked at separately.
I think we should wait for the results of the government review into this issue, which is being published next April.
What are the roles of the Portman Group and the Drinkaware Trust?
The Portman Group was set up to educate the consumer and to come up with a Code of Practice on promotions.The Drinkaware Trust came about because the government said we couldn't do educational work with an all drinks-industry board - they felt there was a lack of independence.So we argued that the drinks industry needed to fund a new body - if they did not we felt the industry might lose its place at the bargaining table.
The result was the Drinkaware Trust. It is all about consumer education - and it is funded by the drinks industry. It is an entirely separate entity with a board of 11 people, with five of those being part of the drinks industry - a further two independents will join in time.
The Portman Group is now here to encourage drinks producers to market products in a socially responsible way. We are here to show leadership on the issue of social responsibility. For example, we are showing commitment to the agreement on unit information on packaging.
Our code of practice has 140 signatories from the on and off-trades to ensure the Independent Complaints Panel's decisions are enforced. The trade's support in this issue is essential to us.We are dedicated to social responsibility issues - we don't lobby on commercial issues. Although we are not independent we see it as our role to challenge our members privately on matters of social responsibility - especially if we feel they are showing weakness in any area.
Does it concern you that there is still some confusion as to exactly what your different roles are?
There should be no confusion and we both probably need to do a better job of communicating our different roles.The Drinkaware Trust does not have a policy remit - it focuses on campaigning on education and responsibility. It could run a big drink-drive campaign. However, if the government asked for its view on the reduction of the limit we would not expect it to give a response. We would expect the board members to go back to their companies and lobby from there. The Portman Group is more likely to comment on these matters.
Are you concerned about the growing overlap of roles and competition between the two organisations?
We have distinct roles and I think it is unlikely that we would ever have that element of competition.
You have come under fire from all corners of the trade following your decision to introduce new rules to your Code of Practice
The recent changes to the Code of Practice [which come into force on January 1 2008] include the removal of alcohol branding from children's replica sports shirts and rules controlling rapid drinking.
As far as the debate on replica shirts goes we want to protect the right of companies to do kit sponsorships. It is therefore necessary to do things around the fringes of the debate to ensure we can keep this.
It has been suggested that your recommendations on banning the use of the words 'shooters' and 'slammers', while using 'shots', will make no difference
The essence of the new rule in the code of practice is to urge consumers not to drink rapidly or consume their drinks in one. 'Down in one' is not a style of drinking that is readily associated with responsible drinking. We can't control the way individuals behave, but we can control the way the industry does.We feel the terms 'shooter' and 'slammer' urge people to drink in a specific way - 'shot' is a more ambiguous term. We recognise this will have a limited impact on consumers' behaviour, but does that mean it is the wrong thing to do? Allowing people to market products that urge people to drink faster will not help the industry's case.
Leading members of the pub industry reckon self-regulation is not working. They look at the supermarkets that have kept their heads down and avoided controversy. What do you say to that?
It is in the industry's long-term interest to self-regulate effectively and show that it is responsible. Most people agree that supermarkets have successfully kept themselves out of the debate. A couple of years ago their response was 'we are general retailers - it is not our problem'. They are no longer able to sustain that argument.
