Iechyd da

Ben Wildsmith

This week’s rise in the minimum unit price of alcohol in Wales from 50p to 65p is a minor shift that sits in the middle of several key debates in our politics.

The rise is in line with inflation, so, in real terms, it is no more than a readjustment to reflect the economy. The problem with inflation, however, is that it shaves away at our entire lifestyles, forcing upon us decisions we previously didn’t need to make. So, any move by government that deliberately increases prices risks looking out of touch with the ongoing struggles of people at the sharp end of the economy.

This change will only affect poorer citizens and those who are electively parsimonious. Its specific target is strong ciders and lagers which have traditionally provided a cheap source of alcohol for those who want or, more problematically, need it. Mid-market drinks with more expensive ingredients will look to be better value as synthetic products rise in price.

The public health case for this move is strong. The policy shadows earlier legislation in Scotland, which also raised its minimum unit price from 50p, as implemented in 2018, to 65p back in 2024.

Public Health Scotland’s evaluation estimated that minimum unit pricing reduced deaths directly caused by alcohol by 13.4%, alongside a 3% reduction in overall alcohol consumption.

This would seem to validate claims that the policy effectively targets problem drinking while having a limited effect on the wider beverage trade.

Prices in pubs are unaffected as they sit above the minimum price level anyway.

Objections to the policy from the Conservatives and Reform UK have focused on libertarian arguments. Benjamin Hodge McKenna, Reform’s health spokesman, claimed that the government was more interested in “pointlessly meddling in people’s everyday lives than tackling the issues that actually matter to Welsh people”.

This position seems at odds with his party’s belief in the robust enforcement of cannabis prohibition but is in line with its objection to Welsh democracy deciding either issue.

Darren Millar, for the Conservatives, said that they would abolish minimum unit pricing and, instead, fund targeted rehabilitation programmes. It’s worth noting that residential rehab typically costs around £15,000 for a 24-week programme. Funding of that sort doesn’t sit comfortably within traditional Conservative attitudes towards public spending and certainly didn’t feature during their recent lengthy tenure in Westminster.

While lacking credibility, Millar’s argument for more rehabilitation places should be welcomed as an unexpected addition to the conversation around the inadequacy of addiction treatment in Wales and the UK.

All roads lead back, as ever, to money and that is where this issue has wider implications. The increased revenue from minimum pricing is kept by the retailers. Wales is not allowed to raise tax on alcohol or compel contributions from the windfall, so, as with plastic bag charges, the money stays in the till.

This is an instance of the constitutional debate being played out in the real world instead of the abstract.

Win-win

A levy on cheap alcohol, ringfenced to fund treatment for those it harms, is the obvious win-win outcome to this issue, but it is impossible under current arrangements. Our straitjacketed government has, instead, had to disadvantage consumers without any direct financial upside.

This creates resentment amongst those affected and bends the debate so out of shape that Tories end up arguing to spend money that doesn’t exist.

Shorn of flags, songs, and history, this is the argument for greater powers being made by the absurdity created in their absence. If better policy requires targeted levies, then our government should be free to impose them.

There’s another issue that seems to have been forgotten and I need to declare a personal interest. Many years ago, I was one of the people waking up at six in the morning and jittering my way to the corner shop for a bottle of white cider, lying to the guy behind the counter that I was working nights and hiding behind a wall to kill the shakes with a glug of ethanol-infused corn syrup.

Alcohol dependence is a living nightmare that very nearly killed me and has killed several people I knew, then and since. So, I do worry about people who will be encountering the new prices without knowing the increase was coming. Alcohol withdrawal can be excruciating and, in severe cases, fatal. I hope nobody becomes the unintended consequence of a policy that is crafted for their long-term wellbeing.

Besides this serious but short-term caveat, this policy is as correct as our ludicrous constitution allows it to be.

Stock up

Nobody is going to be driving to England to stock up on the drinks it affects, as people on X are imagining. Neither are responsible drinkers going to be priced out of a glass or two of wine with dinner.

Such inconvenience as it causes should be weighed against the deaths caused by a sector of the beverage industry that has been exploiting marginalised and vulnerable people for years and pushing on them products that have no value at all beyond the alleviation of withdrawal from the product itself.

Those objecting to what the Welsh Government has done are doing so, largely, because they believe it should be unable to do anything at all.

The Scottish figures are corrected, and “frequently fatal” is now “in severe cases, fatal”.

---

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.