A Little Statistical Relief...

Just some basic figures on Beer Duty for you:

Beer Duty has increased 27% since the late nineties (although in return many smaller breweries have been given 50% relief on beer duty.

Beer consumption has fallen by 11% in the same period. It has been said that as a result, the net income to the treasury from beer duty has fallen when inflation is taken into account.

Duty on spirits, in the same period, has risen by all of 3%, whilst consumption has gone up by 20%.

Duty on wine has risen by 16%, consumption by 46%.

Of course figures can be made to prove anything you want, but the immediate reaction for many is why is beer picked on so much, when in reality higher duty rates haven't actually benefited the treasury, when higher rates on wine or spirits would have done? Anyone would have thought the treasury/country was being run by folks from a nation of distilleries.

Oh, one more statistic. Those brewers eligible for duty relief are not reporting a sales decline. They, and this includes us of course, all report a rise in sales. Officially this is an annual growth of 7.5%, but for many small breweries, who aren't included in the figures because we are too small (or something...) are seeing much higher growth rates - again, including us. And what might that say? Lower duty means we have more to invest in growing? I wonder.

And what, while we are at it, is the apparent drink of choice of the high street hooligan? Spirit based mixers & premium global lagers. So that is one category with a very low duty increase, and another that pays top whack beer duty. Two things can be drawn from this. Firstly, if the Nannies want to hike up duty to discourage binge drinking, then pick on spirits. Secondly, before they do hike up spirit duty, look at second point - the most heavily taxed beers are the global ones, and they are the other drink of choice. So maybe tax isn't they answer? Maybe finding out why youngsters are getting drunk is the answer. But of course that would mean spending money, not collecting it. And that, dear reader, seems to be what it is all about.

One last dose of figures.

According to OECD data, the UK is a comfortable third in terms of alcohol consumption, behind France (2nd) and Ireland (1st, just). And of those three, who has the highest duty rates? Ireland (highest globally for beer, spirits/wine amongst the highest as well), followed closely by us (amongst the highest for all sectors). France is a long way down. See the data in full here. So again, I suggest that duty hikes are not the answer to the problem. And again I suggest maybe there is no interest in the problem, beyond as a means to screw more money out of us.

Now I am not saying that alcohol ABUSE doesn't make people ill, and therefore a drain on scarce NHS resources - it does (although endless sodding seminars and acres of management are also a drain on the NHS - I used to work for an NHS supplier, so I have some experience of this). But a cheeky drink as & when is not something to penalise folk for, especially when globally we are almost unique in the way we behave at night, and we are already one of the most expensive places for a drink globally. Perhaps we just need to ask why our 'young people' want to vomit outside Woolworths, yet those in, say, Belgium, don't?