London bar owner says Treasury change ‘misunderstands why people drink wine'
A change to alcohol duty 'fundamentally misunderstands why people drink wine', a London speakeasy owner has said, as he warned nightlife faces an 'existential crisis'.
Paul Kohler, the Liberal Democrat MP for Wimbledon, said 'every increase in cost makes survival more difficult' for businesses like the one he owns.
The Treasury introduced a temporary 'easement' in 2023 which treated all wine between 11.5% and 14.5% alcohol by volume (ABV) as if it were 12.5%.
It ended in February, so the amount of duty applied to wine increases depending on its ABV, which The Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said would result in 30 different payable amounts within the range.
When Chancellor Rachel Reeves unveiled her first budget in Government last year, the Treasury said the change would make an 11.5% ABV 250ml glass of wine 5p cheaper – but a 13% ABV 250ml glass would be 8p higher, if the cost is passed on to consumers.
Speaking in the Commons, Treasury minister James Murray said firms had 'adapted well to the new system'.
But Mr Kohler – who owns CellarDoor in Covent Garden – had earlier told the Commons that the system is 'simply not workable in the context of wine'.
He said: 'It fundamentally misunderstands why people drink wine.
'Wine is consumed primarily for taste not strength – the ABV affects the taste profile.
'Compare a light Beaujolais with robust Rioja – it's all about taste, not about whether it is stronger and someone can get more drunk. That is not how people consume wine.'
The MP also said: 'The ABV of wine cannot be predicted with precision before or during the wine-making process.
'The alcohol content's stable only at the point when the wine goes into the bottle.
'The ABV varies between different years and different vats, and until bottling we do not know the ABV of a particular bottle.
'It therefore creates huge uncertainty about price and profit margins for the industry if there are different rates of duty depending on the specific ABV, down to a gradation of 0.1%.'
Turning to nightlife, Mr Kohler said: 'The industry is facing an existential crisis owing to the cost-of-living crisis, rising energy prices, inflation, labour shortages following Brexit, changes to commuting patterns, and more than doubling of business rates.
'Now, another increase in alcohol duties are to be yet another burden.
'Every increase in cost makes survival more difficult as I know myself, and this Finance Bill shows the Government is still not taking the dangers seriously.'
Mr Murray said in response: 'The wine easement ended over a month ago and our early indications are that firms, warehouse keepers and HMRC have adapted well to the new system.
'Of course, I and my officials will carefully monitor that situation.'
He added he has been in 'routine contact' with people from the wine industry during his time as a minister.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
The 6-point plan Scottish Labour must seize on to ram home the advantage against 'confused' SNP
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Against, the odds, depressing poll numbers and barely believable claims of Nigel Farage's invincibility, this was a significant victory for Labour and a boost for the leadership of Anas Sarwar. The phrase often attributed to Mark Twain seems appropriate - 'reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Anas Sarwar, leader of the Scottish Labour party, celebrates with deputy leader Jackie Baillie. | Lisa Ferguson This by-election is also a timely reminder that after 18 years in government, the SNP look weary, divided and lacking momentum. The reality for most Scots is a governing party that has become less concerned with fighting Westminster, but is still not tackling with conviction the many policy areas impacting the everyday lives of the electors. Farage and Reform remain a threat. They are eating into the Scottish Tory vote and act primarily as a party of protest with a populist, ultranationalist (English) and isolationist agenda. The achievement to date, in the form of Ukip, was Brexit, an act of national insanity, more recently their barely concealed racist attack on the Scottish Labour Leader on social media and yesterday the offer of a referendum to ban the burka. The Reform party has no pedigree, or political creed, or positive policies and is Trumpian in it's behaviour and political outlook. Its appeal reflects protest, opportunism, cheap patriotism and a claim to be on the side of working people and a dislike of elites. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is a poisonous fraud, a vulture party exposing predatory behaviour, and an amateur version of populist parties elsewhere in Europe. But because they represent the 'anti-politics' lurking in the minds of many in the UK, they are dangerous, especially under the first-past-the-post electoral system. Their sickening addiction to barely concealed racism, hatred of immigrants and contempt for the European Union are unfortunately helping to divide and possibly destroy a once respected Conservative Party. For the SNP, the picture is more confused. Scotland is stalled as a nation. Scotland is bitterly divided on its constitutional future, where many Scots see campaigning on Independence as a major distraction from the effective governance of the nation. John Swinney in Hamilton ahead of the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election (Photo by Jeff) | Getty Images For the SNP, the drive to independence has lost momentum. This has led to much soul searching over the party's immediate tactics and to what extent there should be a more enthusiastic push towards their primary purpose as a party. It is a curious irony of politics that Scottish Labour now faces two nationalist parties that represent protest as a political weapon against the UK government. This provides an opportunity for Scottish Labour to project a more unified approach to our politics and hammer home the point that, as happened between 1999 and 2007, that rebuilding a critical harmony between Holyrood and Westminster and building on devolution is long overdue. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This is 'Unfinished Business', representing a journey, not a destination - opening up a new era of devolved government that makes more of Scotland's potential and places our priorities much higher up the Westminster agenda and the public agenda. This, of course, requires the UK government to waken up to the wisdom of four-nation governance and make much more significant concessions, opening up the possibility of a more Federated form of Union in the future as even England opens up to the benefits of decentralisation, which may then evolve into something more significant. This would help allay the fears of many Labour politicians and supporters that being more Scottish would be equated with support for independence. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The remark from President Roosevelt seems appropriate. 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,' he said. But for all the new opportunities facing Labour in Scotland, the fact the SNP has been in government for 18 years is hugely significant. Being in government is hard work and the pressures and never-ending challenges of office can be draining. But for the SNP, the constant turmoil of competing priorities is clearly taking its toll. Despite John Swinney steadying the ship after the Sturgeon era, the conflict between governing and campaigning is taking its toll as are the divisions within the SNP about priorities. This affords Labour the opportunity to become once again the party of choice for an ambitious Scotland. For the labour Party in Scotland, there is, of course, more work to be done after a period of stress in the first year of the new Labour government at Westminster. Policy missteps, the impression that Scotland was slipping down the Westminster agenda, and proposed changes in welfare and cuts in benefits have concerned traditional Labour voters and supporters, and Mr Sarwar. These darker days are easing and a more progressive agenda looks likely. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Labour Deputy leader Jackie Ballie, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Davy Russell, newly elected Scottish Labour MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse yesterday (Picture: Jeff) First Scottish Labour should continue to value distinctive Scottish perspectives on UK issues and be confident in emphasising differences with Westminster, when appropriate. Second, the Labour Leader should follow the example of the Welsh Senedd Leader who does contest unpopular Westminster policies publicly in her role of defending Wales. Third, Labour should intensify their assault on SNP policy failures in areas such as, education, health, prisons, industrial strategy and poverty - the peoples agenda. Fourth, there is a pressing need to break the tribalism in the Scottish Parliament and accept that 'coalitions of the willing' could achieve more consensus as happened with a real coalition in the period 1999 to 2007. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Five, assert a greater degree of willingness for dialogue and action with the other nations and the UK where issues and differences are resolved between governments, not in the Supreme Court. Warfare provides good copy but poor policy. Six, there is a need for the Parliament to be freed from the tyranny of the Scottish Government who are suffocating innovation. The boundaries have become blurred. The legislature should represent all parties. As 2026 approaches, Labour can offer a new deal for Scots and realise the potential of a remarkable idea, devolution, which is still in its infancy. Sir Keir Starmer must work to better understand that devolution can't stand still and accept that further change is essential not just because it makes sense, but because it is the only way for Scotland to be content within a changing Union and knowing there are attractive alternatives to independence. Scotland is a remarkable nation; it is also unfinished business. The next phase of devolution is long overdue and is required to set out a vision for the next quarter of a century. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad More Britishness will not answer the 'Scottish Question', but Gordon Brown's idea of a 'Union of the Nations' could work if Westminster accepted the fact the debate about Scotland has a long way to go. This article started with my description of Labour's victory in Hamilton being significant, but it is more than that. Spectacular would be more appropriate in relation to the victory in difficult circumstances, but mainly because of the potential it provides for Scottish Labour to once again be at the heart of how Scotland is governed. Sarwar's rallying call should be, 'the chance to serve our country – that is all we ask', which were the late John Smith's last words.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Mainstreaming of far-right ideas in UK politics shows why John Swinney was right to raise alarm
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Received wisdom at Westminster has it that the far-right has never made it into UK politics. Coupled with that theory is then the debate by the same commentators around what constitutes the 'far-right'. However using the measurement of policies pursued, which is, after all, the very essence of a political movement or party, the far-right has most certainly arrived in UK politics. UK parties, across the political spectrum, now embrace the hardest of hard Brexit, unthinkable even in the aftermath of the referendum in June 2016, and a policy that has done untold damage to the economy and our rights. We also had a government that promoted the sending of asylum seekers to Rwanda and MPs who openly campaign on leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which has underpinned our rights since the end of the Second World War. Were the UK to leave, it would be joining Russia and Belarus in doing so, hardly polite company. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Brexit, leaving the ECHR, and the Rwanda scheme are or were mainstream policy proposals in the UK yet they are policies that far-right parties elsewhere in Europe would baulk at. Even the hardest of hard-right parties in other parts of Europe such as the National Rally in France, the Vlaams Belaang in Belgium or Alternative fur Deutschland in Germany have abandoned plans to leave the EU, given the UK's Brexit debacle. John Swinney's stances on the EU, Donald Trump and migration, among others, have won plaudits (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images An attack on justice Yet despite these policy failures, the mainstreaming of the far-right has become all too common in our politics along with their tactics. Over the past few days alone, Conservative Shadow Justice Secretary, Robert Jenrick, attacked the Labour Attorney General for doing his job and defending his clients. His remarks were described by former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve 'as a direct attack on our principles of justice'. As we saw in this week's Hamilton by-election, we in Scotland are certainly not immune. Nigel Farage's attack on Anas Sarwar, which he doubled down on when challenged by the press, should act as a warning to us all. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Such remarks are unacceptable and whereas I may have legitimate policy differences with the Scottish Labour leader, they should have no place in our political discourse. For all the heat of the campaign in the run-up to what was a hard-fought by-election, it was good to see SNP and Labour leaders call out these disgraceful comments. Zia Yusuf's resignation as chair of Reform on Thursday and his concerns around Reform in the Commons should also act as a warning. Calling out bigotry That is why the First Minister was right to bring together colleagues from across the political spectrum in a summit seeking to 'lock out' Reform from Holyrood earlier this year. John Swinney is right to call out their policies and the 'bigotry' that they represent and to call out Farage as 'an accomplice of the Russian agenda'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Fair play to the politicians and representatives of civil society who put any political differences aside and joined the First Minister. That meeting was criticised at the time by the Conservatives and a range of commentators. Given Reform's tactics and language over the course of the by-election campaign, we have seen just how badly needed that stance was and remains. Labour will be pleased with Thursday's win, and I congratulate them on it, however, no party can afford to be complacent about Reform. One of the lessons from Hamilton must be that the key to taking on the far-right is to challenge them on their ideas. Nigel Farage's track record is not a particularly good one. He has been a driving force campaigning to leave the EU for decades. That was a decision that has exacerbated the cost-of-living crisis, removed rights from UK citizens, damaged business, especially small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) and ultimately made us all poorer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He backed Donald Trump whose presidency has destabilised the world, seen tariffs introduced that have damaged the global economy, and undermined efforts to support Ukraine against Russian aggression. 'Island of Strangers' The Reform policy platform is weak. For their opponents, that should provide ample targets. Yet, in the Westminster bubble their policies are given far too much credibility. There is an omertà around discussing the glaring failure of the Brexit experiment and the less said about Keir Starmer's 'Island of Strangers' speech on migration frankly the better. John Swinney would be the first to admit that the Scottish Government haven't got everything right. However, on the big calls around our relationship with the EU, the impact of Donald Trump's presidency, migration, child poverty and the rights we should enjoy as citizens, the SNP leader has maintained credibility for his stances, winning plaudits at Westminster and further afield. Politics is about ideas and Reform's are simply not good ones. The Conservatives and Reform are increasingly aligning on a range of policies and a pact or even merger is not out of the question. This is to be expected, given that Reform draws its politicians and many voters from the Conservatives. They have, in turn, turned their backs on One Nation conservatism, and instead the party is dominated by the Johnson/Truss populist wing, which is not so different from Farage and Reform. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This week's by-election and the preceding campaign must act as a wake-up call. During the run-up to the Holyrood elections, there is an opportunity for all parties to set out their vision for Scotland. On the one hand, there is an inclusive, outward-looking and internationalist vision represented by John Swinney, on the other is Reform's inward and exclusive offering. I know which one I'm backing.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Immigration warning over 'less than welcoming' statements
The tone of Sir Keir's remarks on May 12 was, as observed by Mr Sheerin and many others, surely something of a surprise. And it was unexpected even with an awareness - having covered this key issue closely over months and years - of Labour's developing and lamentable stance on immigration. The Prime Minister declared: 'Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The 'island of strangers' was a striking turn of phrase. Sir Keir went on: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you're not championing growth, you're not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' Maybe with the benefit of hindsight the Prime Minister's remarks, even though they could have been uttered just as easily by the Tory Brexiters, should not have been quite so much of a shock as they were. After all, Labour has embraced the key elements of the Conservatives' hard Brexit: loss of free movement of people between the UK and European Economic Area nations and the ending of the frictionless trade from which the country previously benefited enormously when it was part of the single market. Nevertheless, Sir Keir's tone was surely surprisingly dismal, even given all of this. Not only did we have the reference to 'an island of strangers' but also this declaration: 'This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.' What seemed clear from Sir Keir's utterings was that populism most certainly did not end with the exit of Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak from the prime minister post. Sir Keir's tone contrasted so starkly with Mr Sheerin's reasoned appraisal of the Prime Minister's remarks and Labour's plans on immigration. We had this from Sir Keir: 'We do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.' You would imagine Mr Sheerin, as a veteran of the engineering sector, knows a lot more about the specifics than Sir Keir. And it is worth observing the Scottish Engineering chief executive is passionate about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK being trained as engineers. He would love to see the skills shortages which are posing such a challenge to member companies of Scottish Engineering and others in the sector solved. Mr Sheerin is not a politician - just someone with deep knowledge of the Scottish engineering sector. So what did the Scottish Engineering chief have to say in his quarterly report published on Friday? Read more He declared that he found the UK Government's 'latest pronouncements on immigration disappointing', highlighting the detrimental impact on companies of 'statements that feel less than welcoming'. Mr Sheerin hammered home his view that raising minimum qualification levels from Higher equivalents to degree level would 'leave out the skilled trades and crafts roles where we are already in shortest supply: welders, fabricators, electricians, pipefitters, CNC (computer numerical control) machinists to name a few'. That is surely a crucial point. And it is worth emphasising Mr Sheerin's observation that people skilled in these roles are 'already in shortest supply'. Mr Sheerin also noted: 'The shortening of the graduate visa scheme reducing the right to work from two years to 18 months after graduating will not only hit our education sector but also reduce the attractiveness of the scheme for companies who will have a shorter timeline to decide whether to invest in the process to extend the visa of the employee.' This is another good point. And the Scottish Engineering chief executive declared: 'Whilst I recognise that this [immigration] is a contentious political issue across the UK for a whole range of reasons, in engineering and manufacturing in Scotland the reality is that immigration is a vital source of skills and experience that cannot be replaced overnight. These skills levels take years to build - and we should be building them - but closing off the supply before putting in place the actions to do that is another example of an action that will challenge the stated ambition of growing our economy.' The time horizon with regard to building skills levels is important. It might not chime with that of politicians such as Sir Keir, who seems at pains to bang the drum on immigration as Nigel Farage's Reform UK makes a big noise on this front. However, it is a simple factual point that engineering skills do take years to build. Mr Sheerin declared that a frustration for him in Labour's immigration pronouncements was that 'whereas there is considerable detail on how we plan to restrict and close this supply of skills, on the laudable stated aim that we will replace the loss with trained or upskilled UK-born workers, the detail is missing on how that will be achieved'. He added: 'And there is no detail that recognises that engineering skills take between four and six years to get to a starting level of competency. It does not seem an unreasonable request for the get-well plan to carry at least the same level of detail as the take-it-away plan.' This seems like an absolutely fair summation of the problems with Labour's populist immigration proposals. If you were asked to choose whether you think it is Sir Keir or Mr Sheerin who is on the money in relation to immigration policy and its effect on engineering and the broader economy, it would surely be the easiest of questions to answer, any day of the week.
