Wales Online readers have mixed reactions to the news that the minimum unit price (MUP) of alcohol in Wales will rise from 50p to 65p. The change is designed to tackle alcohol-related harm by increasing the price of cheap, high-strength alcohol, which the Welsh Government says is more commonly linked to harmful drinking. It will not affect every alcoholic drink, only those currently sold below the new 65p per unit threshold.
Expected impact of the increase
The Welsh Government says expert modelling suggests the increase could prevent around 900 alcohol-related deaths and help almost 5,000 people reduce harmful drinking in Wales over the next 20 years. MUP was first introduced in Wales in March 2020. The Government says inflation has reduced the real value of the original 50p minimum price, making the increase necessary to maintain its effectiveness.
Scotland raised its minimum unit price from 50p to 65p in 2024, meaning Wales will now have the same rate. Deputy Health Minister Nerys Evans said the increase was about maintaining the effectiveness of MUP and targeting high-strength, low-cost alcohol rather than penalising responsible drinkers. Alcohol Change UK also supports the increase, saying it targets the strongest and cheapest drinks while avoiding increases in the price of a pint in pubs.
Readers split on the price rise
Commenter Poorchewgal thinks: “Alcohol should be banned altogether! It's responsible for so much ill health, crime and a myriad of other things.” Stevenjason disagrees: “On that basis, you'd ban cars too. This feels like politicians trying to look busy. For many people, enjoying a glass of wine or a beer is a harmless pleasure. This creeping nanny state, where everyone is punished for the behaviour of a few, is becoming ridiculous.”
Paul G adds: “900 people over 20 years, while 5,000 are cutting down. That tells me this isn't really about health, it's about money. If saving lives was the priority, stopping people swimming in the sea would probably save more lives than that, yet we don't tax people for doing it.”
Concerns over unintended consequences
Martin S writes: “I work in a supermarket, and people who used to buy cheap cider are now switching to spirits because they're essentially the same price. If you have a drink problem, you won't necessarily drink less, you'll cut back on essentials like food or heating instead. It's also wrong to assume excessive drinking is only a problem among poorer people. Plenty of professionals drink too much too, and these changes won't address why people drink. Tackling the causes would be far more effective, but that wouldn't generate millions in tax revenue, which is ultimately what these charges are about.”
Adam S agrees: “Some people drink to escape reality or numb the pain of the world around them. I hold an alcohol licence and know alcohol is a depressant, but pricing people out won't necessarily stop them drinking. It could simply push some towards other ways of coping, increasing pressure on policing and the courts, followed by more taxes to fund it.” Michael B says: “This is absolute rubbish. It's about the Welsh Government raising more money. All it's achieved is more retail theft, putting even greater pressure on the police, along with increased abuse and violence towards shop staff.”
Support and cross-border concerns
Anthony W feels differently: “Good. If higher prices discourage harmful drinking, then that's no bad thing. The focus should be on reducing alcohol related harm and protecting communities, rather than making cheap alcohol so readily available to people who are drinking excessively.” Ann H retorts: “We're already paying more for booze than people in England after the Welsh Government introduced its extra alcohol tax to reduce drinking. Many assumed the extra money would go to the NHS, but instead retailers benefited from higher prices. Now more people will simply cross the border to buy cheaper alcohol, meaning Wales loses out on the tax revenue altogether. When will they learn?”
Will raising the minimum alcohol price to 65p a unit actually reduce harmful drinking, or simply hit household budgets? Have your say in our comments section.
