Whisky firm Whyte & Mackay clarifies job cut fears

Whyte & Mackay said it had not set out to mislead anyone

Whisky supplier Whyte & Mackay has said it may not have to cut any jobs, under Scottish government plans for minimum alcohol pricing.

The company had previously told MSPs the policy could cost it 300 posts, but later clarified this was based on a UK-wide introduction of the policy.

Whyte & Mackay boss John Beard was recalled to appear before Holyrood's health committee for a second time.

But the chief executive strongly defended his earlier comments.

A week ago, Whyte & Mackay gave evidence to the health committee, which is scrutinising minimum pricing as part of the government's Alcohol Bill.

The company said introduction of the policy and resulting cost rises could cause the closure of its Grangemouth bottling plant, which employs 200 people, and put another 100 distillery jobs at risk.

I felt the questioning last week was, on occasions, weak John Beard Chief executive, Whyte & Mackay

It has now said that a Scotland-only minimum price set at 50p would hit 83 jobs at the company, which supplies brand and own-brand whisky to supermarkets.

And Mr Beard said that, if set at 40p per unit of alcohol, the policy would have a "negligible effect in the short-term with regards to companies that primarily focus on whisky".

Raising the issue of Mr Beard's evidence last week, committee member and SNP MSP Michael Matheson asked: "Why, in the course of that evidence, were you not clear with the committee that job loss figure was calculated on the basis of a minimum price of 50p applying across the whole of the UK, as opposed to applying only within Scotland?"

The chief executive said Whyte & Mackay's take on minimum pricing had been well known among political parties for more than six months.

He added that there was the prospect of minimum pricing, if passed in Scotland, being extended across the UK, as in the case of the public smoking ban.

"In my position as chief executive of Whyte & Mackay, I think it would have been naive, verging on commercially negligent, not to have taken into account the business repercussions of this extending across the UK," he said.

Mr Beard went on to ask: "Should minimum pricing be introduced across the UK by Westminster following the introduction of minimum pricing in Scotland - and I still believe it will be illegal - would this government be defending Scottish jobs?"

Straight question

And commenting on the committee's previous evidence session, Mr Beard said: "I do believe we've been entirely consistent. Candidly, I felt the questioning last week was, on occasions, weak."

The Whyte & Mackay boss went on to tell MSPs: "If there's any misunderstanding in my evidence last week then I would be the first to apologise, but I do not apologise for the content of what I was telling you.

"I was asked a very straight question subsequent to this committee that I answered."

Although the Scottish government, which does not currently have enough parliamentary support to pass minimum pricing, has yet to set a level, ministers have been using an example of 40p.

However, Whyte & Mackay has insisted on sticking with its 50p per unit estimate.

It said the government's own assessment of the policy used examples of 25p, 50p and 70p, adding that it was a "fair assumption" to adopt the mid-range price.

Meanwhile, supermarket giant Tesco was also asked to reappear at the health committee at a later date to clarify apparently conflicting comments given to MSPs and a House of Commons committee on the issue of minimum pricing.

He said: "If a minimum price of 40 pence was introduced, it would have a

negligible effect in the short-term with regards to companies that primarily

focus on whisky.

"Currently more than 70% of the price of a bottle of whisky is related to

excise and VAT. A 40p introduction would be negligible for whisky."