If there’s one thing we Brits excel at, it’s a contradiction. We queue religiously yet love to complain about the waiting. We champion free speech yet deplore those with opposing views. And now, we drink less than ever, yet alcohol-related deaths have reached record levels.
For all the handwringing in Westminster about the perils of alcohol, the numbers tell an awkward story. In 2023, the UK registered 10,473 alcohol-specific deaths, yet alcohol consumption has been on a steady decline, especially among the younger generations. The taxman, of course, sees a simple solution: raise duty on wine and spirits, penalise the responsible consumer and hope the problem disappears. But as with all simplistic solutions, this one misses the point entirely.
The numbers don't add up
Consider the latest
ONS data: alcohol-specific death rates fell slightly in 2023 compared to 2022 (15.9 per 100,000 versus 16.6 per 100,000), yet they remain worryingly high. England and Wales saw increases, while Scotland and Northern Ireland, where minimum unit pricing (MUP) has been in place for years, continue to have the highest rates. The North East of England topped the charts with 25.7 deaths per 100,000, while the East of England had the lowest at 11.5 per 100,000.
And then there’s the rather inconvenient truth that alcohol consumption is falling. A new survey by
Movendi, a subsidiary of the WHO, finds that 43% of young people aged 18 to 34 are now alcohol-free, and even among middle-aged Britons, a third have ditched the booze. Dry January reached record participation and supermarket sales of no and low alcohol alternatives are soaring. This isn’t anecdotal — it’s a fundamental shift in drinking culture. And yet, alcohol-related deaths persist.
So why is the government still fixated on raising alcohol duty, when the evidence suggests the problem lies elsewhere?
MUP: a solution in search of a problem?
Minimum unit pricing (MUP) was meant to be the silver bullet. Introduced in Scotland in 2018 and later in Wales, MUP sets a baseline price per unit of alcohol, ensuring that cheap, high-strength alcohol is no longer available at rock-bottom prices. The theory was that this would curb excessive drinking, particularly among problem drinkers. But five years in, the results are ambiguous at best.
A recent evaluation of MUP in Scotland found that while alcohol sales declined by 3%, it was not clear that this led to fewer alcohol-related hospitalisations or deaths. In fact, those with alcohol dependence, particularly in deprived areas, continued drinking but spent more on alcohol, leading to greater financial hardship. There is no consistent evidence that MUP reduced crime, disorder, or even overall alcohol consumption among heavy drinkers.
Wales has seen a similarly muddled outcome. While MUP may have influenced purchasing behaviours at the margins, it hasn’t meaningfully reduced alcohol harm. The uncomfortable reality is that problem drinkers do not behave like economists predict. When faced with higher prices, they don’t necessarily drink less — they find ways to cut back elsewhere, switch to illicit alcohol, or binge drink in cycles.
The economic contribution of alcohol
While the government is busy penalising the industry with tax hikes, let’s take a moment to acknowledge its economic contribution. The UK’s wine and spirits industry generated over £76 billion in economic activity in 2022 and supported over 400,000 jobs, according to the
WSTA. The hospitality sector, already battered by pandemic shutdowns and cost-of-living pressures, relies heavily on alcohol sales to survive. Wine, in particular, is under siege, facing punitive duty increases that will do little to curb excessive drinking but plenty to make a decent bottle unaffordable for the average consumer.
And here’s a question rarely asked in the debate: does the economic and social benefit of alcohol outweigh its cost? It’s easy to slap a figure on alcohol-related deaths but much harder to quantify the number of friendships forged over a round of beers or the romance ignited by a shared bottle of wine.
A more sensible approach
If policymakers truly want to tackle alcohol-related harm, they should stop relying on blunt fiscal instruments and focus on targeted interventions. Access to treatment for alcohol dependence remains woefully inadequate, with long waiting lists and patchy availability of services. Education and early intervention strategies — particularly among younger drinkers — are far more effective at reducing harm than simply pricing alcohol out of reach.
Not to mention, alcohol taxation should be proportionate. Penalising wine, which is rarely the drink of choice for problem drinkers, while leaving beer relatively unscathed, is both unfair and illogical.
The UK has a drinking problem, but it’s not the one policymakers think it is. The crisis isn’t coming from those who enjoy a bottle of red with Sunday roast or a cold beer on a summer’s evening. The real issue lies in untreated alcohol dependence, social deprivation and inadequate support services. Raising taxes on wine won’t fix that. It’s time for a more nuanced approach — one that acknowledges both the risks and the rich cultural heritage of alcohol. Because, like it or not, wine is woven into the fabric of our society and no amount of taxation will change that.
