The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES FROM INDIVIDUALS

Summary

• Many individual respondents generally indicated their support or opposition to the principle behind proposals outlined in the discussion paper rather than commenting specifically on the details of how they could be implemented, as requested in the discussion paper's questions.
• A majority of individual respondents who expressed a view were fully in favour of the principle of ending irresponsible promotions and below-cost selling (43%) or in part ( i.e. supported one or two of the three proposals outlined in the discussion paper) (11%).
• There was no consensus amongst individual respondents whether minimum retail pricing should be introduced - 49% expressed views in favour and 43% against.
• A clear majority (62%) of individual respondents were opposed to the proposal to raise the minimum legal age for off-sales purchases to 21.
• There was no consensus on the principle of introducing a social responsibility fee - 48% of individual respondents were in favour of a fee and 44% against.
• A large majority of individual respondents were opposed to the proposals to apply a 'social responsibility fee' to Occasional Licences (64%) and 'other' premises (63%).
• A small majority of individual respondents opposed the proposals to further restrict promotional material in licensed premises - 48% were in favour whilst 52% were against.
• A clear majority of individual respondents were opposed to the proposal to introduce separate checkouts for alcohol sales (64%).
• Almost three-quarters of individual respondents (74%) were in favour of a minimum age of 18 for alcohol checkout staff.
• There were some significant differences in views expressed by respondents according to gender. Female respondents were more likely to support proposals to restrict the sale or promotion of alcohol than male respondents.

Introduction

3.1 This chapter provides an analysis of responses to the discussion paper that were submitted by 259 individuals. The quantitative analysis of responses to each of the set questions is supplemented with qualitative analysis and quotes from individual respondents. Significant differences in the views expressed by male and female respondents have been highlighted in the analysis. The chapter concludes with a short summary of views expressed by the 53 members of the public who wrote or sent emails to Scottish Government Ministers on issues relating to the proposals outlined in the discussion paper whilst the consultation was on-going.

3.2 Almost all individual respondents submitted their reply using the on-line questionnaire based on the set questions. However, for a number of questions respondents generally indicated their support or opposition to the principle behind proposals outlined in the discussion paper rather than commenting specifically on the details of how they could be implemented, as requested. The report highlights where the analysis of responses is based on views on the principle of a proposal rather than the detail.

3.3 The proportion of individual respondents not answering set questions varied from 2% (Question 4) to just under 25% (Question 7). Therefore, in order to provide a more meaningful and consistent comparison all the percentages quoted in the analysis below refers to the 'valid responses'; i.e. the percentages based on the total number of responses to each question and not the total of all responses.

Further Measures to End Irresponsible Promotions and Below-cost Selling

Q.1 We invite views on whether regulations should be made, under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, to:

• put an end to off-sales premises supplying alcohol free of charge on the purchase of one or more of the product, or of any other product, whether alcohol or not.
• put an end to off-sales premises supplying alcohol at a reduced price on the purchase of one or more of the product, or of any other product, whether alcohol or not.
• prevent the sale of alcohol as a loss-leader.

3.4 Just over four out of ten (43%) individuals who answered this question expressed support in principle to ending irresponsible promotions and below-cost selling or for all three measures outlined in this question. A further one in ten (11%) respondents supported one or two of the three measures. Thirty eight percent of respondents who answered this question expressed opposition to the proposals in principle or to all three measures (see Table 2).

3.5 Individuals who supported the proposal to take measures to end irresponsible promotions and below-cost selling agreed with the reasoning put forward in the discussion paper. For example:

"I agree strongly with these proposals, as I believe ''two for one offers'' etc encourage people to purchase more alcohol than initially intended, and alcohol is a serious adult product, the over consumption of which creates enormous health and social problems for both individuals and wider society. The sale of alcohol as a loss leader should also be stopped as presumably retailers are subsidising it with profit being made on essentials like food, which seems to me to be perverse."

"Agree absolutely. In the same way that the rising cost of cigarettes encouraged me to give up smoking, getting less booze for my buck encourages me to buy and therefore drink less."

Table 2: Views of individuals on the proposal to end 'irresponsible promotions and below-cost selling' (Q.1) (base 259)

3.6 Most individual respondents expressed their views on the principle of ending promotions and below cost-selling rather than on the three measures outlined in the discussion paper. Therefore it is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of views on each of the three measures. However, amongst those that did differentiate between the three measures there was more support for preventing the sale of alcohol as a loss leader than for ending free promotions or reduced price selling. For example, the following comment illustrates how some respondents distinguished between the sale of alcohol as a loss leader and the other proposed restrictions:

"I agree with the prevention of alcohol being sold as a loss leader. However, restricting multibuy deals or supplying alcohol free of charge as a part of another retail deal, will only result in retailers reducing the price to the equivalent unit price. Secondly, it appears that there is the assumption that people who are abusing alcohol are drinking more because of alcohol promotions. This is not the case. Young people who ''preload'' before they go out are drinking undiscounted spirits, not a case of beer."

3.7 The main reason put forward by individuals who opposed these proposals was that ending promotions would raise the price of alcohol and would restrict choice. This would make everyone pay more in order to tackle problems caused by a minority who misuse alcohol. For instance:

"I strongly disagree with these measures as I feel you are penalising responsible drinkers as a small proportion of the nation are not responsible drinkers. At a time of rising, food, fuel, mortgage and energy price this will hit the average responsible drinker heavily in the pocket, and will lead to a disproportionate rise in the level of inflation, which will have a detrimental effect on an already difficult economy."

3.8 The analysis of respondents by gender shows that female respondents were significantly more likely to support these proposals than male respondents. Two thirds (67%) of female respondents supported the proposals in principle or in part compared to less than half (48%) of male respondents. Forty two percent of male respondents opposed the proposals compared to 26% of females.

Minimum Retail Pricing

Q.2 We invite views on the proposed principles on which a minimum pricing scheme for alcohol products should be established.

3.9 The discussion paper asked for views on the principles on which a minimum retail pricing scheme should be based, including whether:

• the scheme should apply equally to all premises selling alcohol;
• price should be determined with reference to the alcohol strength of the product rather than other factors, such as type of product; and,
• minimum price should be set independently of those connected with alcohol products.

3.10 Most respondents, in particular those opposed to minimum retail pricing, commented on whether a scheme should be introduced rather than on the details and principles of a scheme. Just under one half (49%) of individual respondents who answered this question expressed a view in favour of introducing minimum pricing whilst over four in ten (43%) expressed their opposition.

Table 3: Views of individuals on minimum retail pricing (Q.2) (base 259)

3.11 Sixty respondents ¹² who were in favour of minimum retail pricing provided clear views on the proposed principles on which a minimum pricing scheme for alcohol products should be established:

• twenty one respondents suggested that all premises should be included in such a scheme, whilst only four suggested that it should apply to off-sales premises only;
• thirty respondents suggested that the minimum retail price should be determined with reference to the alcoholic strength of the product; and,
• twenty respondents suggested that only certain products should be covered by minimum pricing.

3.12 Almost all individual respondents who commented on the issue agreed that the price should be set independently of those connected either directly or indirectly with the manufacture, retail, supply or distribution of alcohol products.

3.13 Many of the individual respondents who supported minimum retail pricing suggested that raising prices would make people think about the amount and type of alcohol they drink. Higher prices might put people off consuming so much. There was a strong view amongst some respondents that some spirits, alcopops, tonic wines and higher strength ciders are too cheap and that " price linked more to strength should help discourage the purchase of strongly alcoholic products that drive the current levels of binge drinking."

3.14 Various reasons were given by the individuals who expressed opposition to minimum retail pricing for alcohol, including opposition to the Government setting prices, minimum pricing being perceived as a form of taxation which would adversely affect 'responsible' drinkers and people on low incomes, and ending irresponsible promotions and below-cost selling would be a fairer and more effective way of tackling alcohol misuse. For example:

"Why should the responsible consumer of alcohol be punished financially for the few. This is simply a tax disguised by MPs (sic) as a health benefit. It will not reduce anti-social drinking only increase the problem by punishing the majority and the lower paid. Why does the state take over responsibility?"

"I do not agree with this part of the policy as I find it confusing and unnecessary given that loss leading promotions and free drink promotions will be stopped. I feel that it's not going to prevent the sale of the more widely abused alcoholic beverages but instead could harm the smaller enterprises producing real ale. It would definitely be punishing the majority of responsible drinkers."

3.15 A small number of individuals suggested that minimum retail pricing might be against competition or European legislation. For example:

"There is already far too much tax and duty on alcohol and once again it would penalise the innocent majority whilst having little or not effect on "problem" drinkers. Other considerations are that such measures may be against EU legislation and even against the legislation in this country."

3.16 There was a similar pattern in the views of male and female respondents as was identified in responses to Question 1. Whilst 63% of females who answered Question 2 supported the principle of a minimum pricing scheme, more males opposed this proposal than supported it (48% against compared to 44% in favour).

Information for Parents

Q.3 What particular information do you think parents and carers would find helpful?

3.17 Eighty individual respondents (around a third of those who answered this question) suggested that parents need more information and statistics about the harmful effects of alcohol misuse and / or the recommended guidelines for alcohol. Respondents suggested that information could be provided to both parents and children through various media such as adverts, websites, emails, leaflets and DVDs. Many of these respondents also suggested that more graphic images of the harmful effect of alcohol misuse would be a powerful tool. For example:

"Statistics from alcohol fuelled crime would be a good start, then the effects of the crimes be shown graphically as well as visual displays of the people who have succumbed to alcohol related diseases and the statistics on the costs to maintain these people henceforth."

"Information similar to that on cigarette packs, which have provided health warnings for many years : such as heavy alcohol intake causes liver damage, cirrhosis, increased chances of being involved in an assault / car accident etc."

3.18 The next most common suggestion (made by 57 respondents) was that parents should set a good example to children by drinking sensibly and not misusing alcohol and / or that there should be a shift to a 'continental' culture of sensible drinking with children being introduced to responsible consumption of alcohol by parents through drinking with meals. For instance:

"Parents need help to look at their own attitudes to drink. I am sure the majority of responsible adults would encourage young people to sample alcohol at home and discuss it openly."

"As a 19 year old girl l feel that the impression your parents make to you about alcohol matters a great deal. I have always been encouraged to drink as a form of enjoyment but never to excess, a glass of wine with a meal occasionally and perhaps the beer on a sunny day. It is only dangerous when parents completely ban alcohol and turn it into a taboo, the drink becomes dangerous and a certain way to rebel. Children tend to copy their parents, so setting a good example is important."

3.19 Thirty three respondents suggested that there should be more effective education about alcohol and its potentially harmful effects as part of the school curriculum. Several of these also suggested that this should be linked to peer education or broader 'lifestyle' education. For example:

"Lifestyle Education should be introduced to schools - I know that there is sex education and career guidance - but this could be replaced by Lifestyle Education. This could then be linked to home studies where the parents / carers need to be involved."

"Alcohol education should begin at school before children are old enough to start experimenting outlining safe limits and a talk from a recovering alcoholic to tell them all the results of an alcohol addiction."

3.20 Other suggestions made by individual respondents included:

• supporting youth diversionary activities;
• providing support to partners of people with problems caused by alcohol misuse; and,
• taking stronger measures against adults or young people who commit crimes under the influence of alcohol and retailers who sell to underage drinkers.

3.21 Around a quarter of individual respondents did not answer this question and 12 respondents suggested that no information is required or that the Scottish Government should not be involved in providing information to parents on this subject.

Raising the Minimum Legal Age for Off-sales Purchases to 21

Q.4 We invite views on whether we should raise the minimum age for off-sales purchases to 21 in Scotland.

3.22 A clear majority of individual respondents were opposed to the proposal to raise the minimum age for off-sales purchases to 21 - 62% were against compared to 38% in favour. It should be noted that only six (2%) respondents did not answer this question and only two gave a 'not sure' answer; much lower figures than any other question.

3.23 As with the previous two questions there was a significant difference in the views of male and female respondents. Two thirds (65%) of male respondents were opposed to the proposal compared to just over half of female respondents (52%).

Table 4: Views of individuals on raising the legal purchase age for alcohol from off-sales from 18 to 21 (Q. 4) (base 259)

3.24 The most common reasons given for opposing the raising of the minimum legal purchase age were:

• the proposal demonises all young people and would impact on all young people between the ages of 18 and 21, not just those who drink irresponsibly and cause problems;
• the minimum legal age for most things (such as driving, being in the Army and getting married) is either 16 or 18;
• it represents an erosion of civil liberties for young people; and,
• the emphasis should be on enforcing current laws and using proof of age schemes to reduce 'under-age drinking'.

3.25 The following are examples of the comments made by respondents opposed to the proposal:

"A soldier can die for his/ her country in war but not buy a drink. A student can obtain a university degree but not buy a drink. Someone can be married and have one or two children but not buy a drink. I would strongly be against raising the age of off sales purchases to the age of 21. There are very many young people in our society who are both responsible and upstanding members of the community. The government should not discriminate against all young people because of those who misuse alcohol."

"Young people are fed up with being 'got at' all the time. The Government should take more action in education, making adults more respectful to young people's opinions and young people should not be seen as a problem. Raising the age is not going to solve the problem. You should promote positive drinking and use this as a marketing tool."

3.26 Supporters of the proposal suggested that it would:

• be a bold step that would help to change the culture of drinking amongst young people;
• contribute towards tackling concerns about gangs of young people hanging around and drinking in the street;
• reduce binge drinking and 'pre-loading' by young people (binge drinking from alcohol purchased in off-sales before going out to pubs or clubs); and,
• help to reduce drinking amongst under 16-year olds as the older minimum age would make it easier to refuse to sell alcohol to under-age drinkers who might look 18.

3.27 The following quotes illustrate these views:

"The real age of drinkers has gone down over the years as drinking has become socially acceptable: here in the countryside, it is commonplace for teenagers as young as 12 to begin drinking. An older age for legal drinking might help change this culture."

"This is probably a good idea as it is sometimes impossible to tell just by appearances how old a young person is, especially at 18 as some 16yr olds can look 18. Raising the age to 21 would make this process simpler for shopkeepers."

3.28 As the following two quotes illustrate there was some divergence in views between those who supported the minimum purchase age being increased only in respect of off-sales and the alternative view that it is wrong to have different minimum ages for alcohol purchase from off-sales and on-sales (pubs and clubs):

"As first I was dismayed by the proposal to raise the minimum age, but when I realised it was only for off-sales, I can see the sense. Limiting off-sales makes a great deal of sense and would hopefully go someway to reduce binge drinking amongst young people. Drinking heavily in a club is different from on the street or some house party."

"It is absurd to suggest that people can buy drink in a pub at 18 but not in an off-license."

Social Responsibility Fee

Q.5 What criteria should be used to determine the types of premises (or specific premises) that should be subject to the fee? ( e.g. late opening premises, or premises in a particular area) or conversely what criteria should be used to consider exemptions from the fee. How should the fee be determined? ( e.g. based on rateable values, alcohol sales turnover)

Q.6 Should a fee be applied to Occasional Licences as well as Premises Licences?

Q.7 Should a similar fee be applied to other premises licensed under separate legislation? If so, what types of premises should be subject to a fee?

3.29 The discussion paper intimated that the Scottish Government intends to introduce a social responsibility fee and therefore only sought views on aspects of how the scheme should operate. However, most respondents who responded to Question 5 commented on the principle rather than the details of the proposal. Also it should be noted that around a quarter of respondents did not answer Question 5.

3.30 There was no clear view in favour or against the principle of introducing a social responsibility fee Just under half (48%) of those respondents who commented expressed support for the principle of a social responsibility fee whilst 44% were against. However, large majorities of respondents expressed their opposition to the proposals to apply a social responsibility fee to Occasional Licences (64%) and other premises (63%).

Table 5: Views of individuals on introducing a 'Social Responsibility Fee' (Qs. 5, 6 and 7) (base 259)

* The figures shown for Q.5 relate to views for or against the principle of a 'Social Responsibility Fee' rather than views on the details contained in the question.

3.31 Many of the respondents who expressed support for a social responsibility fee did not provide reasons for their support or comment in detail on the options for introducing the fee as outlined in the discussion paper. However, several respondents made the point that the fee could/ should be used to support local initiatives to combat alcohol misuse.

3.32 The following quotes are illustrative of the views expressed in favour of the concept of introducing a social responsibility fee:

"This is exactly what would benefit my local community. There are unscrupulous licensed premises which profit directly from the sales of large quantities of alcohol to large numbers of people, seven days of the week. While the rest of us suffer, they profit."

"Any premises with a licence should have to pay the SRF [social responsibility fee]. This should be over and above the cost of the licence, and should be spent working in conjunction with local community groups."

3.33 Reasons given by respondents who opposed the concept of the social responsibility fee included:

• the fee would be viewed as just another tax or means of raising income;
• the licence fee already is a 'charge' on premises;
• there should be greater emphasis on using the licensing system to control problems that may arise; and,
• the fee would not combat bad behaviour by individuals once they leave pubs and clubs.

3.34 Of those respondents who stated they were in favour of a social responsibility fee and provided views on the criteria that should be used to determine which premises should be covered and how the fee should be determined:

• twenty six (28% of those who supported the introduction of a social responsibility fee) suggested that only premises with late licences, night clubs and city centre bars should be subject to the fee; eleven (12%) stated that all licensed premises should pay the fee; and, five (5%) suggested that restaurants and pubs that sell food or are 'family friendly' should be exempted;
• forty (43%) agreed that the level of fee should be based on alcohol sales turnover; only one supported the fee being based on rateable value; and,
• twenty nine (31%) suggested that the fee should be based on police reports of incidences so that well run premises are not forced to pay for the problems caused by others.

3.35 Several respondents, including a small number who opposed the fee in principle, suggested that individuals who cause trouble as a result of misusing alcohol should pay (be fined) instead of, or as well as, premises paying the fee.

3.36 Four respondents suggested that the fee should only be introduced " if the local community feel it to be necessary."

Promotional Material in Licensed Premises

Q.8 Do you agree that regulations should be made, under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005, to extend the existing regulations to:

• Prevent the display on licensed premises of promotional material relating to alcohol in a way visible to persons outside the premises?
• Prevent the use on licensed premises of any special display designed to promote sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises?
• Prevent on licensed premises any other promotional activity to induce the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises?

3.37 As with previous questions individual respondents tended to comment on the principle of restricting promotional material rather than commenting on the three specific proposals raised in the question. Too few respondents differentiated between the three options to provide a breakdown of views on this issue.

3.38 Respondents were fairly evenly split as to whether regulations should be made to extend the existing regulations on promotional material in licensed premises - 52% of those who answered Question 8 were opposed to the proposals compared to 48% in favour (see Table 6).

3.39 There were significant differences in the views of male and female respondents. While 42% of males supported further restrictions on promotional material, 60% of females were in favour.

Table 6: Views of individuals on restricting promotional material in licensed premises (Q. 8) (base 259)

3.40 Most respondents who stated they were in favour of the proposal to extend restrictions on promotional materials in licensed premises did not provide reasons for their views. However, several respondents who did provide comments suggested alcohol is a drug similar to tobacco and should not be promoted whilst others suggested that further restrictions on promotional materials would:

• lower the profile of alcohol and reduce impulse buying; and / or
• reduce the impact of advertising on young people.

3.41 Several respondents went further and suggested that all form of alcohol advertising should be banned or promotional material should be accompanied by information on 'safe drinking' and support on alcohol issues. For example:

"I don't believe that it should only apply to licensed premises, if we are trying to change the attitude of the nation that's exactly where we need to begin (I myself, work in advertising, but would like to see alcohol adverts banned at all cost.)"

"They should also have to display information on "safe" drinking and how to get help if you or your family have a problem. This should be a requirement of having a licence: no display of this, no licence."

3.42 Respondents who opposed the proposals outlined in Question 8 gave two main reasons for their view: restricting promotional material would restrict 'freedom of choice' and would have little impact in reducing alcohol misuse or binge drinking. For example:

"Some of this information lets me make an informed choice about what I want to drink; some offer alternatives to what I may choose to drink. Do we want to live in a sterile world where everything is dull, grey and boring?"

"Again marketing is an important part of any consumer business. This marketing or advertising, in my view, does not encourage certain types of behaviour or irresponsible drinking. It only serves to encourage people to drink one drink over the other or to go to one pub rather than a different one."

Separate Alcohol Checkouts and Minimum Age of Checkout Staff

Q.9 Do you think that there should be separate checkouts for alcohol sales?

Q.10 Should there be a requirement for alcohol checkout staff to be at least 18 years old?

3.43 Only just over a third (36%) of respondents who answered Question 9 stated they were in favour of separate checkouts for alcohol sales whilst two thirds (64%) were opposed. On the other hand, three quarters (74%) of respondents who answered Question 10 were in favour of raising the minimum age of alcohol checkout staff to 18, whilst a quarter (26%) were against.

Table 7: Views of individuals on separate checkouts for alcohol sales and minimum age of checkout staff (Qs. 9 & 10) (base 259)

3.44 Just under a third (32%) of male respondents were in favour of separate alcohol checkouts compared to 46% of female respondents. However, there was significantly less variation in views between male and female respondents in relation to the minimum age of checkout staff: 79% of female respondents and 72% of males supported this proposal.

3.45 Respondents opposed to separate alcohol checkouts mainly commented on the inconvenience of separate checkouts for people buying alcohol along with their weekly grocery shop, the demonising of drink without necessarily reducing consumption amongst young people and binge drinkers, and that it would stigmatise responsible drinkers. For example:

"Of all the ideas in the report this is by far the silliest. This would merely annoy purchasers who would resent the inconvenience of having to queue at a separate till. It would do nothing to reduce alcohol sales and would be a constant reminder on the nanny state interfering in their lives. Perhaps a sensible compromise would be to restrict alcohol to a designated area of the shop to minimise impulse buying."

"Trying to attach a stigma to people who buy drink is not helpful. Some people buy it along with other shopping in a supermarket and drink it in a responsible environment, why should they be penalised by having to buy it separately?"

3.46 Those individuals who outlined why they supported this proposal mainly agreed with the discussion paper's reasoning that it would show that alcohol is not an ordinary commodity. For example:

"Separate checkouts will help emphasise that this is not necessarily part of the daily diet and will make young people stand out more when they buy large quantities."

3.47 Almost all the individuals who supported the separate checkouts proposal suggested that it should only apply in supermarkets or large shops and not small 'corner shops'. However, a few respondents suggested that separate alcohol checkouts should apply "not only to large supermarkets but to franchised chains such as mini markets with well known household names."

3.48 A large majority of respondents who supported the proposal to increase the minimum age of checkout staff permitted to sell alcohol agreed with the reasoning given in the discussion paper. For instance:

"It is more credible for someone aged over 18 to deny the sale of alcohol to under-18s."

"I feel that this is important as the sale of alcohol does involve a level of responsibility that should rest with adults."

3.49 Respondents who opposed this proposal mainly referred to existing legislation and restrictions being satisfactory and that it is not necessary to increase the minimum age of checkout staff. For example:

"Currently, someone under 18 can only sell alcohol under the supervision of someone over 18. This law is adequate. Leave it as it is. It is up to businesses to decide what is best for their particular circumstances."

3.50 Several respondents suggested that training of checkout staff (irrespective of their age), adequate supervision and proof age for young people buying alcohol are more important than increasing the minimum age of checkout staff.

3.51 It should be noted that 32 respondents (12%) stated they would be in favour of a minimum age of 21 for alcohol checkout staff if the minimum age for purchasing alcohol from off-sales is increased to 21. Two respondents suggested that the minimum age for selling alcohol should be raised to 25.

Comments and Views in Ministerial Correspondence

3.52 Fifty three items of correspondence relating to the consultation on the discussion paper were received by the Scottish Government - Ministerial Correspondence System whilst the consultation was ongoing. Two of the correspondents made general statements about the consultation itself, such as ensuring that young people are consulted.

3.53 Forty two of the correspondents who wrote to Ministers expressed negative views on the proposals contained in the discussion paper:

• twenty nine opposed the proposal to raise the minimum age of purchase to 21;
• six expressed general opposition to the proposals contained in the discussion paper;
• five specifically opposed the proposal to introduce minimum pricing; and,
• two expressed the view that stronger enforcement of current laws is preferable to additional new restrictions.

3.54 Nine correspondents expressed support for the overall approach or for one or more of the proposals in the discussion paper:

• six expressed general support for the proposals;
• two were in favour of the proposed restrictions on promotional drinks offers; and,
• one was in favour of raising the minimum age of off-sales purchase to 21.

« Previous | Contents | Next »