Alcohol - Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) - continuation and future pricing: consultation analysis

2. Overview of respondent profile and responses

This chapter details the number and type of respondents who participated in the consultation and outlines the overall nature of their responses.

Total sample

A total of 545 consultation responses were received from 432 individuals and 113 organisations.

Listed below are the 10 most prevalent themes at a total sample level, from most to least commonly mentioned, regardless of whether the theme is positive or negative. This is to provide an understanding of prevalence across the total sample.

• An additional financial burden created either by MUP or by a price increase
• Will not deter people with alcohol dependence
• The available evidence has not proven that MUP is effective
• Unfair to moderate drinkers
• Need for more targeted action and support
• Support for a wide range of alcohol harm prevention measures, in some cases including MUP
• General comments that MUP does not work
• Evidence shows MUP has been effective
• Explicit support for continuing MUP
• Agreement with 65 pence per unit

Individuals

Individual members of the public represented 79% of respondents; their views drive the prevalence of specific themes at a total sample level.

Individuals typically left shorter responses to the open-ended questions (Q3). Over four fifths (86%) left a comment, using fewer than 100 words on average. In line with the quantitative results detailed in Chapter 3, responses from individuals were typically more negative about continuing MUP and increasing the price per unit to 65p.

Coordinated response - Brewing, whisky and spirits sector: Thirteen individuals provided the same or similar wording at Q3. Their response explained that as a worker in the sector, they felt MUP must be scrapped. Half of this group of respondents went on to provide additional detail, which was coded thematically with other open comments made in response to this question.

The 10 most prevalent themes among individuals, from most to least mentioned, were:

• An additional financial burden created either by MUP or by a price increase
• Will not deter people with alcohol dependence
• Unfair to moderate drinkers
• General comments that MUP does not work
• The available evidence has not proven that MUP is effective
• Need for more targeted action and support
• General criticism of the Scottish Government and SNP
• Increased negative impacts or unintended consequences
• Explicit opposition to MUP continuing
• Wider negative impacts on business

Organisations

Responses from organisations represent 21% of the sample. Organisations were asked in their Respondent Information Form to classify the nature of their work from a pre-selected list of options. The analyst team reviewed these responses and determined how to group respondents for analysis purposes. Table 2 shows the number of each type of respondent and the percentage of the total sample each group represents.

Organisations often provided long, detailed responses to the open-ended questions (Q3); some raised complex points, or referenced sources or research in support of their views. Nine out of ten organisations (90%) made a comment, using over 800 words on average.

Responses from organisations were generally more positive about continuing the MUP provisions and about increasing the price per unit to 65p. However, views varied considerably depending on the nature of each organisation’s work; areas of divergence are highlighted in the analysis.

The 10 most prevalent themes among organisations, from most to least mentioned, were:

• Evidence shows MUP has been effective
• Support for a wide range of alcohol harm prevention measures, in some cases including MUP
• Improving public health
• Agreement with 65 pence per unit
• Explicit support for continuing MUP
• Minimum unit price should rise over time
• Reducing health inequalities
• Need for more targeted action and support
• Other comments on alcohol consumption in Scotland
• General support for MUP

Coordinated response - European Alcohol Policy Alliance (Eurocare): Sixteen international organisations who responded to the consultation were identified as members of the European Alcohol Policy Alliance. All 16 supported the continuation of MUP and the increase in the minimum unit price. Five organisations did not leave an open comment. Of the remaining 11, six provided a similarly worded, detailed response outlining the reasons for their support of MUP.

It should be noted that Alcohol Focus Scotland and Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems (SHAAP) are also members of the European Alcohol Policy Alliance. Both submitted their own responses to the consultation, the latter of which was endorsed by a small number of other respondents.

Coordinated response - Public health organisations: Six public health organisations, all in favour of continuing MUP and increasing the minimum unit price, submitted a similarly worded response to the consultation. These organisations were the Scottish Directors of Public Health, The Special Interest Group for Alcohol, NHS Highland, Highland Alcohol and Drugs Partnership, Dumfries and Galloway Alcohol and Drug Partnership (DGADP) and the Public Health Directorate NHS Highland. Their detailed responses outlined multiple points concerning the positive impact of MUP on public health, as well as their insight and recommendations to the Scottish Government.