One step forward, two steps back...

You'll have noticed a reduced output on this blog of late as I have been experiencing a little "writer's block". I'm not sure I can pin down the reason, maybe it's because I've been busy on a couple of other projects, maybe due to the lethargy brought on by the inexorable rise of the mercury in thermometers across the land, or maybe I've realised the absurdities of 'the system' under which we all live. Whatever the reason, last night's thunderstorms have reduced the temperature and the rain has perked the garden and me up a little, so here goes with enough words to make up for my recent taciturnity.

Like a famous film poster read, "just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water", I read with dismay HMG's latest tortuous squirming in the wake of its decision to scrap minimum pricing for alcohol and the latest 'research' into the effects of alcohol on young women. The pub industry, on the one hand the cause celebre of MPs across the party divide, with a modest reduction in beer duty, a consultation into pubco reforms and the temporary abandonment of minimum pricing for alcohol, is yet again under headline grabbing attack from its new found friends in government and long-standing enemies in the 'health lobby'.

Firstly, in a ministerial statement to the House of Commons, Government Minister Jeremy Browne sets out HMG's position on minimum pricing but also took the opportunity of mentioning other measures which will be implemented and those that are under consideration:

Whilst minimum pricing will be kept under review it will not be implemented at present although the indication is that there will be a ban on alcohol sold for less than cost plus VAT. In addition, ‘multi packs' will not be banned. Although it's worth noting Kate Nicholls' (strategic affairs director at the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers) comment:

"We are extremely disappointed that the Government has not grasped the nettle and taken meaningful action to stop the sale of pocket money priced alcohol and irresponsible promotions in the off trade which are together fuelling unsupervised consumption and contributing to alcohol related harms."

In line with there being no blanket minimum pricing per unit there will be a concentration of action in what the minister described as "high harm" areas of the country and an emphasis on giving more powers to enable "tougher action on irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs"; 

Browne, the minister of state for crime prevention no less, also hinted at some areas of relaxation to alcohol retailing under the banner of reducing red tape and regulation:

• making it easier for what are described as community premises to get a licence for low level alcohol sales
• changes to the Temporary Event Notice restrictions to increase the numbers of Notices available
• indication that the requirement to renew personal licences will be removed but also trailed for consultation is the possibility of the outright removal of the requirement for personal licences.

and secondly, the Glasgow Centre for Population Health in its research paper- "Alcohol-related mortality in deprived UK cities:worrying trends in young women challenge recent national downward trends", by Deborah Shipton, Bruce Whyte, David Walsh. (You can wade through the plethora of data and charts here.)

The latter is easier for me to deal with, as having no grounding in mortality statistics or public health the majority of this peer reviewed eight page paper, is somewhat lost on me. However, the abstract states:

"Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland, has high levels of deprivation and a poor health profile compared with other parts of Europe, which cannot be fully explained by the high levels of deprivation. The excess, premature mortality in Glasgow is now largely attributable to deaths from alcohol, drugs, suicide and violence."

You'll note the attribution to causes other than alcohol, yet when a layman such as myself attempts to make sense of the statistical data presented it seems strange the other causes of death mentioned above are not given the special emphasis the report gives to the 'demon drink'. 

Whilst I praise the authors for bringing to wider attention the apparent disparity in mortality rates for women born between 1970 and 1979 in not only Glasgow but also Manchester and Liverpool, which it seems to blame entirely on their drinking habits, from which the popular and trade press have drawn their headlines, I can't help but think they have been somewhat selective in what they choose to concentrate on. 

But if you dig a little deeper into the dry prose of this troika of public health analysts you'll come across this little gem:

"The shifting landscape of the excess mortality in Scotland, originally from cardiovascular disease and ischaemic heart disease and now to alcohol, drugs, suicide and violence, points to deep-rooted societal level factors driving the excess poor health in Scotland; the recent rise in alcohol-related deaths is likely to be a symptom of these wider societal-level influences. 

Tackling the alcohol-specific causes of the poor health in Glasgow, although important, alone is unlikely to improve the health of those in Glasgow"

It goes on, of course, to recommend minimum pricing and no doubt the statistical analysis and the "manipulated dataset" the authors used will bolster the Scottish government's ongoing experiment with minimum pricing. This despite finding:

"A marked increase in alcohol-related deaths, beginning in 1993, was seen in Glasgow, and to a lesser extent in other parts of Scotland. This stepped increase is in contrast with the picture in both Manchester and Liverpool where the increase was largely linear across the three decades. 

In all three cities, however, the alcohol-related death rate stabilised in the early 2000s, with some decrease seen in the late 2000s. In Glasgow this fall was greater, in absolute and relative terms, than in the other two cities"

It is only the "birth cohort" of women from 1970-1979 that buck the trend (also being experienced across the country) and cause the authors such concern to such an extent, that in all the eight pages of analysis the other causes of mortality in their abstract are mentioned a scant four times and always in the context of this being a more significant factor in mortality rates than alcohol.

So one question for all the media darlings and neo-prohibitionists out there who jumped on this latest tumbril - "Why not take up the scourge of drugs, violence and suicide that appears to be the real problem for the majority of the populations of Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool?" Could it be, for the former, selling newspapers and filling column inches with sensational findings is a little easier than getting to the truth about greater societal ills; for the latter it's their usual tactic of selectively extracting "data" from others' work and spinning it to their relentless demonisation of social drinkers.

Either way, which bit didn't you get? I mean, the clue was in the title you dolts... "recent national downward trends" ! No trumpeting of flat-lining or reducing mortality rates attributed to alcohol then?

Now we can return to Mr Browne and his concentration on "high harm areas" of the country... here's a suggestion for a starting point... Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool. But not for some localised version of minimum pricing but for some action on the societal results of deprivation brought on by drugs and the violence and suicides so prevalent in these cities. 

Oh and whilst you're at it how about including the off-trade in your promulgations from time to time, why are pubs and clubs singled out, yet again, for "tougher action on irresponsible promotions". Time and time again lazy politicians and their journalist friends trot out the same line "it's the pubs what's to blame governor" whilst conveniently forgetting the mayhem caused by 'pocket money pricing' in the off-trade.

As I've said before the current coalition administration seems to have developed a schizophrenic approach to its alcohol strategy, on the one hand a clampdown on the minority of irresponsible retailers in the on-trade, is coupled with turning a continued blind eye to the off-trade and is now compounded with proposals to relax how alcohol is sold.

Make your mind up man! How is making it easier to get premises licences for "low level alcohol sales" (whatever they're meant to be)  in "community premises" (village halls and the likes) are going to help tackle society's relationship with booze? So along with a two-tier health service we're now to have a two-tier licensed retail sector, with some operators constrained by increased regulation and scrutiny and others allowed to enter the market place with the minimum of fuss.

Whilst the on-trade will welcome the increase in the number of Temporary Event Notices it can serve on licensing authorities, how is increasing the number of potential events where alcohol can be served be reconciled with the usual mantra that "24 hour licensing" has been such a disaster for public health?

And the clincher? One of the most progressive measures introduced by the Licensing Act 2003 was to differentiate between the suitability of premises to have an alcohol licence (the premises licence) and the suitability of individuals to serve alcohol and run licensed premises (the personal licence). The former being a static licence which relevant authorities control by means of operating statements, licensing conditions etc hardwired into the way the premises are maintained and operated by their owners; the latter being a deminimus permit resulting from training, examination and certification designed to ensure professional standards in alcohol retailing.

So, Mr Browne, how does removing the necessity to renew ones personal licence or even the scrapping of the personal licence going to promote the responsible sale of alcohol and management of licensed premises? Instead of tinkering with the provisions of the Licensing Act, why not make sure local licensing authorities apply an even hand between on and off-trade and start reviewing the licences of those in the off-trade who continue to flout not only the spirit but the word of the law? 

And you wonder why I'm lost for words at times? Anyway I'll sign off with the tag-line from another favourite film... "in space no one can hear you scream"... nor in my little padded cell... 

Nurse! Meds! Stat!

Going... going... gone?

The "Say No To Minimum Pricing" button may well disappear from this blog next week if reports in today's press are accurate, according to the Telegraph, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is expected to tell MPs that the Prime Minister’s personal pledges to restrict access to cheap alcohol will not be implemented.

 Instead, ministers will seek to enforce a much more modest change, banning retailers from selling alcohol at very cheap prices in “loss-leader” deals. It said that the ban on selling alcohol below cost price will be presented as a way to tackle problem drinking.Sources said that May will also announce that the ban on “multi-buy” discounts, for example deals where two bottles of wine that would cost £6 separately can be bought together for £10, will not be implemented.

Now if local licensing authorities will be just as draconian in their approach to the off-trade as they are to the on-trade by reviewing the licenses of the big supermarkets and off-licences who continue to flout the guidance on "responsible retailing" we might just see an acceleration in the decline of problem drinking the health lobby are so keen to promote, but so reluctant to mention when they get on their soap boxes.

That's two down and three to go then, from my five point plan for the pub trade:

1) Drop VAT to 5% for the hospitality industry

2) Scrap the Beer Duty Escalator

3) Forget Minimum Pricing

4) Regulate the Pubcos

5) Equalise Business Rates for pubs in line with other businesses

Not The Queen's Speech ...

The pomp and circumstance of the state opening of Parliament by The Queen may seem anachronistic but it does give 'Joe Public' an intimation of what Her Majesty's Government is going to be springing on us in the not to distant future.

More importantly it's what's not in the speech that can sometimes matter ... 

"Just because something is not in the Queen's speech does not mean the government can't bring it forward as law, but we have not made a decision,"

(In an interview on the Today program on BBC Radio Four, with the wonderfully combative John Humphrys, touching on minimum pricing for alcohol, Jeremy Hunt esteemed Secretary for Health stressed that no final decisions had been taken).

Perhaps it's because of propoganda from the health lobby such as this Guardian newspaper report in which it's claimed by researchers in Canada that minimum pricing reduces alcohol harms and hospital admissions; something neo-prohibitionsists have been touting for a long time.

Interesting then to see this response from Miles Beale of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association

"The Institute of Alcohol Studies claims evidence from Canada shows minimum unit pricing for alcohol brings significant health benefits. Using their own estimates of population attributable fractions, researchers in British Columbia say between 2002 and 2009 a 10% increase in average minimum price was associated with a 32% fall in alcohol-related deaths. But actual hospital records show that the number of alcohol-related deaths in British Colombia in that period went up – from 1,073 to 1,169."

"There is another problem. One state, Alberta, does not have controls on the sale of alcohol, but shows no discernible difference in drinking patterns and health harms compared with the rest of Canada. This shows there is no simple link between alcohol price and harm, and that cultural factors are the most likely indicators of consumption patterns"

Dr Perry Kendall, British Columbia's provincial health officer, makes this damning acknowledgement that provincial governments in Canada have introduced a minimum price  for alcohol:

"mainly to bring in money rather than to protect public health". 

It simply won't do for mainstream media to perpetuate the myth that minimum pricing for alcohol is the panacea for the societal problems of alcohol (mis)use ... so my hat's off to Mr Beale for pointing this out. 

Pubs, as responsible retailers, have huge restrictions put on them regarding promotional pricing etc, yet the off-trade (principally the major supermarket chains) are allowed free rein to peddle 'pocket-money' priced booze. 

Surely the myths, half-truths and sometimes outright falsehoods trotted out by the health lobby mustn't be allowed to influence politicians to introduce minimum pricing in England & Wales, if they do it won't be pubs that benefit (after all we're already pricing well above the mooted 45p per unit), not will it be brewers. It will only be the likes of supermarkets that benefit from this multi-billion pound windfall.

You can bet your bottom dollar they won't be using any such government largesse to fund alcohol awareness programs, reduce the price of healthy food options, introduce a living wage for their employees languishing on minimum wages or pay increased tax revenues for the Treasury it their accountants have anything to do with it.

I know it's only Wednesday but ... Nurse! Meds! Stat!

It's Child's Play Really ...

Just a quicky today ... if you want a considered approach to tackling "binge drinking" from political "think-tank" Demos ... then read on it certainly seems to make more sense than some of the current thinking on Minimum Pricing.

Post Scripts ...

The Publican's Morning Advertiser reports on a letter to the Telegraph from some of the "leading lights" in the UK pub and brewing industries supporting Minimum Pricing for alcohol

Here's the full text of the letter

SIR – We urge the Government to stick to its plans to introduce a minimum unit price (MUP) for alcohol, to address the costs to society of irresponsible alcohol sale and consumption, and to encourage drinkers back into pubs and clubs.

The important role of pubs in communities across the country is often under threat from the easy availability of excessively cheap packaged alcohol.

The Government has public support. In a recent YouGov survey the majority said the Government was right to try to reduce the amount of cheap alcohol sold in shops.

Yet at the same time, the Government’s plans are being undermined by some who seek to distort the public’s understanding of how MUP would work. For example, 46 per cent wrongly believe MUP would increase the price of alcohol in pubs.
MUP will not solve all alcohol-related ills, but it will encourage responsible drinking.

The recent move to scrap the beer duty escalator and cut duty by 1p per pint is also welcome, in discouraging consumption of higher-alcohol products – drunk mainly at home – such as spirits, wine and strong ciders and beers.

By introducing MUP, the Prime Minister has a great opportunity to save lives, to save money and to protect British pubs.

Rooney Anand Chief Executive, Greene King

Stephen Glancey Group Chief Executive Officer, C&C

Mike Benner Chief Executive, CAMRA

William Lees-Jones Managing Director, JW Lees Brewery

Stuart Bateman Managing Director, Bateman’s Brewery

Steve Richards Chief Executive Officer, Novus Leisure

Peter Marks Chief Executive, Luminar

Keith Bott Managing Director, Titanic Brewery

Jonathan Barker Managing Director, Mitchell’s of Lancaster

Tony Brookes Managing Director, Head of Steam

Michael Kheng Director, Kurnia Licensing Consultants

p.s. you'll need to set the level at over £1 a unit to make a difference to most pubs

p.p.s. you'll also have to explain to the majority of UK consumers why you've handed the likes of Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury, Co-Op, Aldi, Lidl, Waitrose etc a multi-billion pound windfall at their expense

p.p.p.s. you'll need to set aside a considerable "fighting fund" for all the government lawyers to defend your action in the UK and European Courts

p.p.p.p.s. or you could just consider applying existing legislation (i.e. The Licensing Act 2003) to the "off-trade" and prevent them from running irresponsible drinks promotions the same way you do with the "on-trade"

Oh, OK then, the post scripts are mine ... 

Is this the alternative to Minimum Pricing?

Not In Ipswich ... not in a town near you soon?

Much has been written (on this blog) and elsewhere about the potential for Minimum Pricing to drive down incidence of problematic (ab)use of alcohol. Regular readers of this blog know full well my opinion … it won't work; they will also know my view that proper implementation of licensing law to force both on and off trade to be 'responsible retailers' is the route to take, if for no other reason than the legislation and machinery to enforce it are already in place (just not being used to full effect).




So it was interesting to read in today's Independent (and just now listening to the BBC) that Ipswich is rolling out their "Reducing The Strength Campaign" in a bid to remove 'super-strength' beers and ciders (above 6.5% ABV) from their micro-marketplace. So far 40% of off-licence outlets (including some of those most guilty of 'pocket-money pricing') have agreed to the initiative. The Independent implies that the murder of "four street drinkers … in the last three year" has, at least in part, prompted this action.

Ipswich and Suffolk Councils say:

"We are positive that the Reducing the Strength Campaign will have significant, long-lasting, positive effects for the people of Ipswich.

"The negative impacts associated with super strength alcohol are significant for the consumer and the wider community, but also for the public services who deal with the consequences.

"This campaign aims to take the problem away at the source.

"We hope that licensees will share our belief in the positives associated with becoming 'super strength free' and that they will recognise the huge benefits that can result from removing these products from their shelves.

"We are the first county in the country to launch a campaign of this kind, and we hope that with support from our off-licences, we can roll this out across Suffolk, and eventually offer the campaign as a model for public services across the UK."

Just a few questions on all this:

1. Isn't it shameful that in order for both retailers and local licensing authorities to take action that four people have to be murdered first?
2. What will happen if the remaining 60% resist, for some will as diminished supply in one sector of a market place is usually reciprocated in another section as consumer demand continues, this for the more unscrupulous will mean increased sales (and presumably increased profits). Will the licensing authorities seek to impose this as a licensing policy, that's if it was legal and not a 'restriction of trade'?
3. If this is rolled out across the country by local or national politicians seeking a quick fix to the problem of binge drinking (always a vote winner that one) will it stop at the off-trade or will it then 'mission creep' into the on trade? Will the threshold of 6.5% ABV fall to encompass many beers and ciders sold in the responsible retailing environments of pubs?
4. … and yet again, how come only beer and cider comes under the microscope? What about the cheap wine and spirits deals? Could it be that the good officers and councillors of Ipswich and Suffolk don't drink White Lightning and Tennent's Super but enjoy a dram or the odd bottle of Chablis instead?

We certainly need to do something about 'binge drinking' and maybe this is the way forward, as opposed to Minimum Pricing, which has the potential to be so manifestly unfair to those who do drink responsibly and those who are economically disadvantaged but still fancy a tipple. But be careful what you wish for, creeping regulatory control is no substitute for carefully crafted legislation born out of full political dialogue and engagement with the electorate.

Perhaps widening the 'national conversation' to ask consumers as well as retailers nd manufacturers what solution to the problem is required? But that would mean actually listening to voices with no 'vested interests', be it the drinks or the health industries … not going to hold my breath on that one.

How To Get It Completely Wrong ...

On Tuesday, I read in the Publican's Morning Advertiser, that Greene King was in support of minimum pricing (and my thoughts on that are well documented here and elsewhere) proving that dis-jointed thinking is not the sole reserve of the nuMPties in Westminster ... apart from the premise that minimum pricing won't be the magic bullet to cure all Society's alcohol related problems, it is just another 'stealth tax' that will deepen the problems of the brewing industry and the pub trade. What really got my goat, aside from the staggering naivety of this major player in the UK hospitality industry, was that they think that minimum pricing is a "supportive measure" for them, their colleagues in brewing, their customers in the pub trade and their own managed house business.

Yesterday, I read in that same august journal, that Adnams have a fairly peculiar view on the beer duty escalator, in that whilst they think the escalator is a bad thing, they also think that the £200,000 duty subsidy that micro-brewers receive is a bad thing too.

Call me a conspiracy nut if you like, but is this the beginnings of a concerted effort by national and regional brewers to squeeze the little guy out of the market? Imagine a couple of years down the line when not only is there an escalator for beer duty, but also one for minimum pricing and as a hard-pressed Chancellor looks at every more 'imaginative' ways to chase his holy grail (deficit reduction) that the subsidies to a still emerging sector of the brewing industry gets cut off at the knees by reducing, or even completely removing, the duty subsidy for micro-brewers.

For these small artisan brewers who have contributed so much to the increase in the cask and craft ale market (both on and off trade) and are widely recognised as being the saviour of a good proportion of the dwindling national estate of pubs, this will be the perfect storm. Reduced or zero duty subsidy will mean inevitable price rises at their, albeit tiny, factory gates or as will be more likely another unsustainable cost that they simply cannot absorb and go belly up.

Oh and don't imagine for a moment that the big pubcos or supermarkets will move an inch on their purchasing prices to help these minnows of the brewing world, they'll be more than happy to carry on gouging prices at their goods inwards gates. The former will simply pass the cost on and the latter will happily absorb the minute amount of extra duty that minimum pricing will add to their retail prices.

Give it a couple of years and the staggering exponential growth in local brewers producing interesting beers will falter and within a couple more we'll be back to the position we were in a few years ago where instead of over a thousand brewers in the country they'll be just a couple of hundred, churning out mass-produced and in some cases undrinkable muck. So much for the precious 'free market' and the choice it brings consumers.

So Greene King et al, get your act sorted, put aside commercial rivalry (between your super-sized companies and the tiny entrepreneurs in your industry) and use the considerable economic and political clout you have to tell this (and future) administrations that enough is enough and to stop screwing up brewing and the vital social institutions that they supply. Or it won't just be Quentin Letts on Radio 4 asking "What's the point of pubs?" it will be the very people who need them as one of the most socially cohesive businesses in the UK who are asking what's the point?

As the premise of the program is that more and more pubs are like restaurants anyway (and a jolly good listen it is too) many pub operators might begin to ask the same question themselves. Especially when you learn that Mitchell & Butlers are in the process of rolling out even more 'take-away' food operations in its bid to dominate out of home dining and, it would appear, the take-out market.  Which will see the demise of even more pubs as greater numbers 'squeezed' consumers resort to tucking into an M&B take-away "gourmet burger" and sup on that minimum priced can of lout, whilst watching that other great knackerer of the the pub industry (Sky) showing over-paid, mediocre prima-donna, 'professional' footballers take time out from their inane Tweets to dive at the ground ... talk about dystopian future.

No wonder that so many young adults (18-24 apparently) wouldn't consider a career in hospitality ... who would invest their time and energy in an industry that not only appears to be in terminal decline but also at war with itself? ... and I was feeling so good after the Olympics ...now if nurse would kindly bring me my medication and prevent my head from exploding ...

Pots, Kettles, Carbonisation and NuMPties ...

Cover image of the Report of the Health Select Committee Report -July 19th 2012

I am grateful to the former group editor of the Publican's Morning Advertiser, Paul Charity, for reminding me of the on-going hypocrisy of the nu-MP-ties in Westminster.


In his most informative daily Propel Newsletter, he reports that:

"Midlands MP condemns booze culture in the House of Commons: MP Aidan Burley has called for an end to the “boozing, alcoholic culture” of the House of Commons. He claimed excessive drinking was encouraged by late working hours that meant MPs had to sit around waiting to take part in votes. He told The Commons: “We have a problem: the late-night, boozing, alcoholic culture of this place. That is something that is made worse by having to wait around until ten o’clock to vote.”

... and opines thus:

"It’s an irony that Health Select Committee MPs are set to condemn progress by the alcohol industry in reducing excessive drinking when there’s clearly such a problem with excessive drinking among MPs themselves. Perhaps this has blinded them to the realty – drinking is reducing year-by-year in the UK but cultural norms, including a tendency to rapid drinking in this country, take a long time to re-shape, not least among middle class types working long hours in Westminster."

Surely this can't still be the case after the Speaker, John Bercow, who chairs the House of Commons Commission, the body that runs the facilities of the Commons, promulgated this at the end of April in the wake of the Eric Joyce debacle (remember the hard-drinking, Tory-head-butting nu-MP-ty for Falkirk?) : 

Alcohol policy

The Commission takes its responsibility for the welfare of those who work on the Commons Estate very seriously. Following careful consideration of the issues around alcohol consumption it agreed the following actions to promote responsible alcohol use:

· a wider range of non-alcoholic drinks and lower strength beers will be provided in catering outlets

· staff serving alcohol would receive further training and support in refusing to serve customers when necessary

· at receptions and events where alcohol was served, glasses would be topped up less frequently

· further promotion of the support available to Members and House staff by the occupational health service and the Speaker's Chaplain

· consultation to take place with the Administration Committee, the House of Lords and the Sports and Social club on the opening hours of bars on the Parliamentary Estate

... and that, folks, is what passes as a "policy" ... "further training for staff" - what, like publicans have to undertake on the basic principles of licensing law (oh, forgot Parliament only makes laws for the rest of us not themselves) ... "topped up less" - bet they'd put their hands over their collective glasses if they really had to pay for it ... which brings me on to pricing, the Commission noted that significant price increases had occurred in recent years and that bar prices were now comparable to high street pubs, not that there was much evidence of this in January when prices certainly seemed to be "deeply discounted" but perhaps things have changed since then ...

This hand-wringing, cringe-worthy display of two-faced-ness by the nuMPties puts me in mind of Grandma's admonition to us when we questioned some of her more illogical promulgations : "Do as I say, not do as I do".

This, of course, from the members-only club that brought you financial melt-downs, nose-in-the-trough expenses scandals, any number of "omni-shambles", Olympic-gate, the beer-duty escalator ... who continue to refuse to get tough with the off-trade by means of existing licensing law but will no doubt introduce minimum pricing as part of their continued tax-raids on the hospitality industry ... whilst axing august bodies such as the Alcohol Education Research Council that inform and educate on responsible drinking -get real purleeeeese!

(Today's piece has been brought to you by The Hyphen Corporation - bringing you "Joined - Up - Thinking",  for the 21st Century, a sub-division of Ellipsis plc ... "Need We Say More?")

I'll sup from that cup ... or how I learned to love being taxed ...

A report in the Telegraph today says that vast majority of alcohol sold in the UK (71% according to the report) is sold at a discount.

The report goes on to say that in Germany only 19% and in France 22% of alcohol was part of a promotion, whilst European average was 28.5%, with the Netherlands offering 30% of alcohol on sale at discounted prices.

The research by SymphonyIRI Group has emerged as the Government debates introducing a minimum price for alcohol of around 40p per unit. SymphonyIRI said alcohol was on "sale" more than any other product category in the grocery sector.

So let's start with the SymphonyIRI research for whom I've got just one question ... "Discounted from what?" Is there some universal standard price for alcohol?

Now here's one for HMG ... are you really surprised at the level of discounting by the on-trade when we have the second highest level of beer duty in Europe ... that equates to over 40% of all beer duty collected but only 13% of the beer consumed? Hard-working people up and down the land, who having been squeezed by the banking crisis that was not of their making, want an affordable pint in which to drown their sorrows ... what's so wrong with that?

No doubt the anti-drinking lobby and HMG will use this "research" to add gravitas to their claim that Minimum Pricing is required, well perhaps it is within the off-trade where the deepest discounts are applied and the lowest unit price is routinely charged in direct contravention of licensing requirements on retailers to be responsible in their promotional activity.
 

There are also concerns about the amount of alcohol being sold through the internet where a study by the University of Plymouth has found that online alcohol sales had largely fuelled a “significant and emerging battleground” in the efforts to tackle teenage binge drinking. Quelle surprise there then ... not! With next to no control over the sale of booze to minors how come online retailers aren't being subjected to the same level of scrutiny, regulation and control as the (by and large) on-trade?

Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer - Official Portrait June 2012

This administration is now infamous for its inability to "join the dots" when coming up with its policies, none more so than it's woeful attempt at an Alcohol Strategy. So Waldorf & Statler (you posh muppets) here's a couple of suggestions:

Ban the sale of alcohol on-line ... make it a requirement that physical proof of age is required to be seen and verified by an actual responsible human being rather than a useless age-verification algorithm.


Dare to create, not a minimum price, but a Standard Unit Price (SUP) for alcohol from which discounting is regulated, that would level the playing field between on and off trade and in the process allow those who truly add value by providing service, premises and safe controlled environments to consume it in (such as responsible retailers such as pubs) to make a decent return (and living) on the products they sell.

Even the acronym SUP is more appealing (and relevant) to drinkers than MUP (you muppets!) Not only that, but it would cut out all the accounting bullshit that goes on at HMRC to determine whether alcohol is being sold at below cost in the off-trade and thus depriving a hard pressed Exchequer of much needed tax revenues. It might even free up a few bods to chase companies and individuals who use "aggressive" tax avoidance schemes ... you say tomato I say to-mar-to ... you say avoidance ... I say evasion ...

I'm on a roll ... three's a charm ... whilst you're at it why not a Standard Rate of Alcohol Duty (on a sliding scale according to strength if you like) applied to all alcoholic drinks? Level both the supply and demand and allow some true transparency and simplicity in both the retail and manufacturing sectors. Too simple for you? Universal suffrage coupled with universal "suffering" ... and we'll really "all be in it together" bet there wouldn't be so many cases of Moet being delivered to No 11 then . (Honestly not a spoof ... spot the Associated Press copyright in the lower left corner.)

Anyways off to the pub for an over-taxed pint served by a hard-pressed publican in his vastly over-rented Punch pub ...

Plan A ... Kaput, Plan B ... Just a Rapper, So Georgie ... Plan C?

You'd think that even the posh-boys in No 10 and No 11 couldn't be that deaf to the increasing chorus of national / international opinion that they should do something to stimulate growth in the UK economy ( Obama, IMF, IPRR, CBI, TUC, IOD ... the list goes on and on) ... but then again no.

Here's a totally pub-centric set of proposals:

1) Drop VAT to 5% for the hospitality industry

2) Scrap the Beer Duty Escalator

3) Forget Minimum Pricing

4) Regulate the Pubcos

5) Equalise Business Rates for pubs in line with other businesses





How the five point plan would help pubs ... and what you can do to help achieve these aims:

Jacques Borel, from the VAT Club reckons that a drop in VAT would create over 300,000 jobs (if you want a copy of the fact pack email: adam.pescod@wrbm.com) if you haven't signed the e-petition then do so now - click here

Scapping the Beer Duty Escalator would go a long way to protecting what the British Beer and Pub Association estimates are the 400,000+ jobs that rely on beer and its sale - if you haven't signed the e-petition then do so now - click here

Minimum Pricing won't solve the problem of alcohol abuse and will only further burden those on low incomes who enjoy alcohol "responsibly". If you haven't signed the e-petition then click here

Regulating the Pubcos to ensure that there is an equitable division of profit so that tenants can earn a living and invest in their businesses will help to further slow the demise of the Great British Pub - if you haven't contacted your MP regarding this matter then click here

Treat all tax payers equally as the HMRC mission statement says and stop the nonsense of rateable values for pubs being based on mythical market rents, fair maintainable trade and turnover. Challenge the Valuation Office at every opportunity ... way too many business rates petitions to choose from!

Pubs (and the brewing and hospitality industry in general) are huge wealth creators, employment providers and more importantly part of the social "glue" that keeps this country together ... on average a community pub contributes over £80,000 a year to its local economy according to the IPPR

To paraphrase JFK ... "ask not what your pubs can do for you ... but what you can do for your pubs ..." something we should be telling all our customers. Get them involved even if it's just based upon ruthless self-interest ... for them and you!

Minimum Pricing ... Maximum Court Time

With thanks to Greg Burrows for the link to the judgement of the European Court against the Netherlands when they tried to introduce minimum pricing for certain alcoholic products ... basically it is a "quantative restriction" under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty ... or in other words illegal.

To many of us this judgement is not surprising ... what is surprising is that the likes of Salmond and Cameron are intent on introducing minimum pricing for alcohol ... given that this judgement was handed down on January 24th 1978!


So unless the EEC Treaty has been amended sometime in the last 34 years WTF are Cameron and Salmond up to?

Numpty and McNumpty are going to cost UK taxpayers a shed load when it comes to having to test this again in the European Courts ... added to the distinct possibility that it will have next to no chance of succeeding as a policy to reduce alcohol harm it begs the question if either of the Numpty Cousins are fit for purpose?

Just a thought ...

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics ... Part 4

Minimum Pricing for Alcohol is being mooted as a solution to the problem of binge drinking.

The graph (right) is taken from a House of Commons Briefing Paper for MPs on Alcohol  it opens as a PDF.

Given that Cameron et al are calling for Minimum Pricing based partly on the rise in binge drinking ... well this is one sector of the population that is reducing this type of activity without minimum pricing.

What could have caused this drop in the absence of minimum pricing? Could it have been education and campaigns such as DrinkAware and the entire drinks industry from brewers to pubs?

Time to say "No To Minimum Pricing" as it will be the wedge that the health industry will use to force ever more draconian alcohol consumption controls ... just as the clean air campaign in pubs culminated in the smoking ban.

Apart from the ludicrous suggestion that a minimum price of 40p a unit would reduce consumption, the effect of this measure would disproportionately affect the less well off in our society, unlike the (ex)members of the Bullingdon Club if the picture I featured on April 1st is anything to go by ... and no, it wasn't a spoof.

Breaking news ... London man set to lose job due to minimum pricing ...

"Re-shuffle, what re-shuffle?"

If there's one job loss that I shan't mourn brought on by this administration's disconnected, disjointed and misinformed Alcohol Strategy it will be that of the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley.

As reported in the redoubtable Independent Lansley is said "to be furious that David Cameron has overruled his concerns over the legality, morality and effectiveness of the proposal designed to tackle Britain's binge-drinking culture. It left Mr Lansley looking isolated and sparked suggestions he will lose his job in the next reshuffle."


Let's just analyse some keywords in that report:

Legality ... I am sure that 'Europe' will have something to say about minimum pricing at some point ... good job the Treasury has all that above inflation alcohol duty escalator money to burn when they appoint a veritable army of high-paid lawyers to defend its decision when it is challenged in the courts.

Morality ... allowing (along with the previous administration) certain elements of the off-trade to continually flout the principle of "responsible retailing" and the four licensing objectives in the Licensing Act, then take it out on the majority of consumers who "drink responsibly" especially those on low incomes ... but let's face it the 'undeserving poor' don't deserve a pint at the end of a hard days graft.

Effectiveness ... unless the minimum unit price is set well above the currently mooted level of 40p it just won't work. Put it to something like £1.20 a unit and the disparity between off-trade pricing and on-trade pricing would all but disappear. There would be no incentive to drink at home when the price one pays in the supermarket is the same as in the pub ... the latter of which, of course, on the whole provides a safe controlled environment for social drinking. (Note to Georgie Porgie ... here's a bit of joined up thinking ... think of the increased corporation tax and VAT this would generate ... gotta pay for all those lawyers!)

Designed ... this implies some sort of intelligence and forethought, something that is clearly not evident in the Alcohol Strategy, unless it has been a carefully crafted 'knee-jerk reaction' to certain reports about the rise in liver disease or hospital admissions .

Isolated ... this will be the feeling a lot of publicans get when the staff and customers have all departed for the night and the long dark night of the soul is upon them. A little reported consequence of this administration's mismanagement of the alcohol has been to further diminish the sustainability of thousands of tied community pubs by steadfastly defying the 'will of parliament' over regulation of the pubcos. As more and more pubs go to the wall, less and less 'safe places' are available for 'responsible drinking' ... let alone the costs in terms of ruined lives and increased benefit costs. Isolated? That'll be the solitary ounce of common sense the Cabinet share between them.

So don't spare a thought for Lansley, it would seem the majority in the NHS won't, he'll be fine with a couple of well paid directorships in the health provision industry ... save your compassion for the ordinary folk of this country who are just trying to make a living and have a pint and a natter come knocking off time.

P.S. Note to picture editor of the Independent - how about using a bottle of wine or spirits next time you run a piece on alcohol and save the images of beer for beer related stories - you lazy git!

Lies Damned Lies and Statistics, Part 3 or

Minimum Unit Price … MUP … a MUPpet initiative from a Muppet Administration.

 

(SEPARATED AT BIRTH?) 

Well the media has had a field day with David Cameron's announcement of minimum pricing for alcohol, whipped into a frenzy by the likes of Theresa May's pathetic attempt to divert attention from the Budget and divert the news cycle away from the Granny Grab tax changes.

A Department of Health Press release for the day estimated that reducing the number of units of alcohol sold by 1 billion would save a 1,000 lives a year and the Health Secretary announced that 

“Last year there were 1.2 million admissions to hospital associated with alcohol.”

HMG's pincer movement in the battle against alcohol abuse of the MUP (at a stupidly low level of 40p … see my earlier thoughts) and the Public Health Responsibility Deal an arrangement with the big drinks manufacturers to cut the strength of various lines of beer, wine and cider is typical of the the disjointed thinking of this administration. 

The press release came with a plethora of headline grabbing statistics pointing to or further alerting us to the demon drink … but is this the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Andrew Lansley's quote is a classic piece of political spin 1.2 million hospital admissions doesn’t mean that the same number of people are in A&E etc because of alcohol, as anyone who has been admitted to hospital whilst managing a health problem several times means the absolute number of patients will always be less than the number of recorded admissions.

You also have to take into account the way that admissions are recorded and the way that NHS statisticians manipulate these figures anecdotal evidence collected by FactCheck suggests that "analysts decided that a certain fraction of people who, say, fall over and twist their ankle, do so because they are drunk."

They go on to say "what the analysts do next is to assign a value based on the estimated likelihood of a certain percentage of injuries or illnesses being caused or exacerbated by alcohol to every patient. So if you fall over and twist your ankle for whatever reason you become a fraction – 0.22 per cent of a single drunk patient. And that number is then multiplied by all the people admitted to hospital for falls. It follows that, if the total number of patients admitted to hospital goes up, then the portion of those admissions theoretically attributed to alcohol automatically goes up too."

Since when does this equate to 1.2 million admissions related to alcohol? They don't as the NHS has stated that only 25% of "alcohol related admissions" were "wholly attributable to alcohol consumption". In the 2010 figures this meant 265,000 not 1.2 million! Further NHS reports also show that only of these admissions only 25% of those were attributed to a "primary diagnosis" as an alcohol specific condition. (For those of you without a calculator to hand this is just over 68,000).

Having looked at these figures I have decided that the rest of HMG's claims about fewer deaths probably won't stand up either, no so no need to spend hour upon hour trawling the net.  

What I did look at is the Introduction to the Government's Alcohol Strategy as it claims this startling piece of information:

but hides the Office of National Statistics reported change in alcohol consumption (or "clearances" as it calls them) in the UK as percentage changes recently: 2005/06 -2%, 2006/07 -1.3%, 2007/08 +1.2% and finally 2008/09 -7.2%.

So starting from a base point in 2005 alcohol consumption over the period to 2009 actually fell by a cumulative figure of 9.16% … okay so we pissed it up since the fifties but consumption in this country is falling.

Don't be fooled by the New Puritans or their political mouth-pieces and make sure you tell your customers the truth when they discuss it with you … as they surely will.

In the interim did you know that you can apply for a free £85 worth of resources, including a natty "Unit Measure Cup" to illustrate to your staff and customers what different drinks equate to in layperson's terms?


Go to DrinkAware to take up this offer get more information that will help you be a more responsible retailer than you probably are already.

Finally a huge thank you to Patrick Worral (Fact Check) for putting this train of thought in motion.


Now if Waldorf and Statler  (Cameron and Clegg) can just provide me with another opportunity to reference them as Muppets ... still that shouldn't be too long, should it eh?

Minimum Pricing ... the silver bullet?

Just doing a trawl of the big three supermarkets this morning and average price for can of Stella (4.8% ABV) is 91 pence, which, according to DrinkAware's online calculator is 2.1 units, therefore unit price 43p. (I'm sure that's the math ...)

Similarly from the respective retailer's budget brands, Vodka, 70 cl (28 x 25 ml shots – normal pub measure) average price 33p a shot, again DrinkAware says that a 25 ml shot is 0.9 units, so it’s 37p per unit.

The story is the same for white wine (Chenin Blanc, ABV 12%, 125 ml glass) comes out at 61p a glass which at 1.5 units is a unit price of 41p.

Mean average for all the drinks? 40p a unit.

So minimum pricing at 40p won’t really have that much effect in terms of this type of drink, where it will have an effect is in some of the very cheap cider, for instance Frosty Jack (7.5% ABV) 2 litres at Tesco £3.79, DrinkAware says a 2 litre bottle is 15 units, therefore unit price is 25p.

I suspect that the majority of “binge” drinkers, who pre-load before hitting town (and on-trade venues) will be drinking the former drinks at 40p a unit already. 

Now if the minimum price was pegged against the national average on-trade price it might make a difference, for instance the average price of a pint in UK (according to pintprice.com) is £2.90, which would make 4% Stella in the pub £1.26 per unit.

I would suspect that simple Keynesian economic theory of supply and demand would kick in here if unit price was to triple for off-trade (to bring it into line with on-trade) and demand might fall.

I'll not go into the ins and outs of health issues relating to alcohol consumption, not being a health professional, apart from saying that "moderation" is probably a good mantra (as with most things in life).

However, much has been written about the correlation between alcohol pricing and anti-social behaviour and as an industry veteran of over 30 years I have first hand experience of this issue. In reply to an enquiry I made about research into this issue, Kent Matthews, The Sir Julian Hodge Professor of Banking & Finance Cardiff Business School (who has researched this) has this to say:

"The relationship between alcohol and violence is well documented in the medical literature but the causation between alcohol consumption and violence is difficult to prove.

Some violent people drink a lot, others drink in anticipation of a fight (football violence) and then others will have characteristics that are correlated with both drinking and violence. Therefore there may be 2-way causation between drinking and violence.

The thing about using the price of alcohol (beer and lager as proxies) is that the causation must be one-way. Violent injury cannot cause the price of beer (and lager) but the price of beer (and lager) affects consumption which could cause violent injury.

So using the price of beer as a determinant of violent injury (controlling for other factors) provides a stronger argument for causation." 

Or put simply "the more you pay for beer the less you drink and the less you scrap". 

You, along with the rest of us, have to make your own mind up about this, I can only speak from 30+ years experience in the Licensed Trade and say that headline grabbing by politicians and health groups will not solve the problem … until we have better alcohol education we’ll not make any inroads into this societal problem.

As I reported on this blog last year The Alcohol Educations Research Council's (AERC) main aims are to:  

“Generate and disseminate research based evidence to inform and influence policy and practice” and “to develop the capacity of people and organisations to address alcohol issues.”

Both worthy aims and the AERC has, during the last five years, concentrated on family interventions, community action programmes and screening plus brief interventions for alcohol misuse. They are a repository of a vast library of reports and research into the effects of alcohol that both government and industry readily draw upon. 

The Coalition’s response to this sterling work? Turn it into a charitable trust and we know how well charities do during hard times – especially if they're not the cuddly / furry types. Good call Mssrs Clegg and Cameron; at least they’ll be able to use dogma and prejudice to determine their alcohol harm reduction policy without the inconvenience of a publicly funded body calling them to account. After all the AERC will just be another bleeding heart charity soon!

It really is time for some "joined up thinking" on the issue of alcohol (ab)use but as with much this administration is undertaking "joined up" clearly isn't in their vocabulary and minimum pricing (especially at the level mooted) on its own simply isn't going to work. One thing I do know, however, is that demonising drink(ers) and pubs won't help and allowing the off-trade to continue to flout the Licensing Act's provisions about responsible retailing won't help either. 

I view some of the off-trade much as I view unscrupulous arms dealers in this respect, as long as there's an End User Certificate in place (such as a Premises Licence) what actually happens to the products they sell, how they are used and by whom are of absolutely no consequence to them.

To quote Yuri Orlov (a character in the Film "Lord of War"): 

"There are two types of tragedies in life. One is not getting what you want, the other is getting it"

For the truth about how much we, as a nation drink Channel Four has done a Fact Check

Vote in the poll on Minimum Pricing - Poll closed 75% said it won't work!