Minimum pricing: It's difficult to speak with one voice

By Rob Willock

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags Minimum pricing Broadsheet

Willock: "The truth is that nobody really knows what the impact of minimum pricing would be"
Willock: "The truth is that nobody really knows what the impact of minimum pricing would be"
It was an interesting coalition of a dozen industry leaders who put their name to a letter published in the Daily Telegraph last week urging Prime Minister David Cameron to stick to his previously announced plans to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol.

Signatories included the chief executives of a handful of pub-operating breweries (Greene King, JW Lees, Batemans, Mitchell’s of Lancaster and Titanic), a couple of late-night operators (Novus and Luminar) and the drinks company C&C Group.

One can understand the motives of at least a couple of these sub-groups. The late-night operators must be sick of preloading (some of their customers are sick from preloading!) and a premium cider distributor must be deeply frustrated by supermarket deals offering four litres of Frosty Jack’s for a fiver. But one has to wonder whether the impact of this missive was undermined by its
limited support.

The PMA​ understands that minimum pricing’s chief advocate Rooney Anand — CEO of Greene King — was the originator of the letter and sought wider industry support for it.

So where were the signatures of the CEOs of the other big pub companies, the other brewers and the other nightclub chains? And what can we read into their non-participation — would they be more likely to appear on a letter recommending ‘no minimum pricing’?

The letter also suffered from its juxtaposition on the Telegraph’s​ website with a poll of its readers. At the time of writing, the survey had attracted nearly 3,000 votes, with 37% for: “Yes, we drink too much and this would help curb problem drinking,” and 63% against: “No, this measure would be anti-competitive and penalise the wrong people.”

Of course, that’s not quite the same as a straight yes or no vote on minimum pricing, as there might be other reasons why people are pro or con, but it does show the extent to which many people are suspicious of broad-brush Government intervention on commercial matters.

And of course we must remind ourselves that a recent questionnaire by the British Institute of Innkeeping of 345 of its licensee members found 77% in favour of the concept of a minimum unit price for alcohol.

It’s a confusing picture, and one of those issues for which everyone seems to be able to cite research that supports their position. @GreeneKing recently tweeted: “Independent research suggests 46% of people believe minimum alcohol pricing will raise prices in pubs... it won’t.” And: “In the same survey 51% believed Government was right to try to reduce the amount of cheap alcohol  sold in shops.”

The truth is that nobody really knows what the impact of minimum pricing would be — in the short, medium or long term. Even the Government can’t make up its mind on the matter.

Instinctively, it makes sense for members of the on-trade to support it in principle as a relatively simple mechanism to close the price differential between shops and pubs. But there are others — in all areas of the on-trade — who are vehemently against it.

So for anyone to claim that their specific position on the matter represents a cross-trade view (which, to be fair, the letter to the Telegraph did not do) would be misleading.

Unlike the beer-duty escalator campaign, this is one issue on which we are going to find it very difficult to speak with one voice.

Related topics Legislation

Related news

Spotlight

Follow us

Pub Trade Guides

View more

The MA Lock In Podcast

Join us for a Lock In