The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Neil Hamilton.

That takes us to the debate on the general principles of the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to move the motion. Vaughan Gething. 

Motion NDM6683 Vaughan Gething

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales in accordance with Standing Order 26.11:

Agrees to the general principles of the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open today's debate and move the motion on the general principles of the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill, which was introduced to the National Assembly last October. We've been working on this particular Bill for a number of years. We first consulted on a minimum pricing for alcohol in 2014 as part of the public health White Paper before the last election. As the Deputy Minister for Health, I published a draft Bill on minimum unit pricing. I would like to thank my ministerial colleagues Mark Drakeford and Rebecca Evans for their work in helping to shape this piece of landmark public health legislation. 

I'm grateful to members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Finance Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. I won't attempt to address each of the recommendations in the time we have this afternoon, but the Government will consider each of them carefully as we move towards Stage 2. In particular, I will listen carefully to what people have to say today, because it may well affect my response and the Government's response to the recommendations. I'll also make clear that I'll publish a response to the recommendations before Easter recess, so that Members can see those before we are too far into Stage 2, should the Assembly proceed in any event. 

It should be no surprise that we'll vote against the UKIP amendment. We believe that this Bill will have a positive outcome on reducing hazardous and harmful drinking, and the associated harm that that causes to communities across Wales. This is not a Bill that seeks to punish drinkers by making alcohol punitively expensive. This Bill takes a sensible and targeted approach to a very real and evident problem in Wales today. Like so many others western countries, we have a problem with cheap, strong and readily available alcohol.

The impact of alcohol-related harm makes for difficult reading. In 2015-16 alone, there were 54,000 hospital admissions attributable to alcohol here in Wales. Those admissions were estimated to cost the NHS £120 million a year. In 2016, 504 people died because of alcohol, and every one of those deaths was preventable. This Bill is about helping to reduce those harms, but it is not the panacea or a magic silver bullet to all of the challenges. It is one more way that we will have of tackling and preventing alcohol-related harm. 

There is significant evidence from around the world on the relationship between the price of alcohol and alcohol consumption. We also know there is a strong relationship between the amount someone drinks and the harm that they experience. People who drink hazardous and harmful levels of alcohol are also much more likely to consume cheaper alcohol. So, despite the UK Government's ban on below duty plus value added tax sales of alcohol, we continue to see alcohol sold for pocket-money prices. Some drinks cost less than a bottle of water. 

We see the effects of harmful drinking every day in our NHS, in our workplaces, in our communities and in our families. We believe that introducing a minimum unit price will reduce the harms associated with hazardous and harmful drinking and further strengthen our existing harm-reduction measures. There are a number of issues that will require further consideration, and I'm grateful to the committees for highlighting those during their scrutiny of the Bill.

One of these relates to the potential impact of a minimum unit price on dependent drinkers, as highlighted by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. Dependent drinkers will be affected by the introduction of a minimum unit price. They are among the hazardous and harmful groups of drinkers this Bill specifically targets. And I recognise some concerns that dependent drinkers may not be able to reduce their levels of consumption without help or, alternatively, if they reduce drinking it may tip them into withdrawal.

I've noted calls made for additional resources to be allocated to substance misuse services in anticipation of a potential increase in demand as people seek access to treatment or support. So, the Welsh Government will continue to work with area planning boards to ensure that, when this legislation is introduced, subject to the will of the Assembly, these services are there for those in need, because we continue to maintain our investment of almost £50 million a year to support people with substance misuse challenges. Almost half of this money goes directly to the seven area planning boards, which commission substance misuse services for their regions. A further £17.1 million is currently ring-fenced for substance misuse services within health boards, and that will increase for front-line services to £18 million a year from this April. We're also working to bring down waiting times for treatment as I've highlighted in previous debates in this Chamber.

The Stage 1 scrutiny of the Bill raised concerns about whether the Bill would have a disproportionate impact on moderate drinkers and those from low-income families, and some asked whether heavy drinkers will choose to spend income on more expensive alcohol over heating and food. The updated modelling work from the University of Sheffield shows that moderate drinkers will be largely unaffected by the introduction of a minimum unit price. That's because moderate drinkers don't drink large amounts of alcohol on a regular basis and are less likely to drink cheap alcohol.

We do expect there to be an impact on people in low-income households who drink hazardous or harmful levels, but that is also where we anticipate making the greatest health gains. People with the least resources drinking at harmful levels are much more likely to experience alcohol-related illness requiring long-term and significant healthcare, and frankly they're also much more likely to die from their drinking. The statistics on this are striking. So, we can't ignore that level of health inequality.

The health committee's report highlights the potential risk of substitution of alcohol with other harmful substances. The evidence base for that is limited, but I recognise the concern. That's why I'm happy to reconfirm that I have asked the Welsh Government's advisory panel on substance misuse to look at that issue and report in the coming weeks. And, obviously, that report will be published and made available for Members and the wider public to scrutinise.

I also want to deal with the context of cross-border issues. Some people have argued that a minimum unit price could be ignored in large parts of Wales because of the proximity to the English border or that people will turn to illicit alcohol. Some people have talked about booze cruises to Bristol. Introducing this legislation would mean different pricing regimes between Wales and England, but we also know that the costs of travel over any distance and the cost of a person's time are likely to outweigh potential savings. I remain hopeful that the UK Government will follow our lead and Scotland's lead and introduce minimum unit pricing, just as they followed our lead on the smoking ban and carrier bag charges too.

We'll work with partners to identify any impacts of the minimum unit price on the sale or consumption of illegal alcohol—again an issue raised in the health committee report.

In the past few months, there has been discussion about whether the level of the minimum unit price should be on the face of the Bill. The Government's view remains the same: specifying the level in regulations gives us the opportunity to remain flexible and respond to changing circumstances. That position was supported by the health committee and external stakeholders, including Public Health Wales, although I recognise that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee came to a different view in their recommendations. So, we'll continue to proceed on the basis of specifying the level of a minimum unit price in regulations to be agreed by the National Assembly under an affirmative procedure.

Turning to how that will be specified, we'll look at the modelled impacts of different levels of a minimum unit price and then make a balanced decision. Again, I wish to reiterate that I will consult on the proposed level and publish a regulatory impact assessment with a thorough financial assessment of the impacts alongside the draft regulations. The CLAC committee asked me to set out our justification including illustrative examples on the face of the Bill. These are exactly that. They explain how to calculate the applicable minimum price for alcohol. In particular, Members asked for clarification on how we intend to avoid confusion if the level of the minimum price ends up being different to that included in examples in the Bill. This is part of trying to make the legislation accessible and easy to understand. They involve mathematical calculations and we felt that examples on the Bill would help people to understand. That's also been broadly welcomed by stakeholders in the response to the draft Bill. So, the Bill and its supporting documents make it very clear that the minimum unit price will be whatever price is specified in regulations made by Welsh Ministers with the positive agreement of this Assembly, and we will also make that clear in the future guidance and communications.

I will turn now to the issue about a voluntary levy that rose in the reports of at least two committees, so some of the additional revenue that we expect to be raised could be put aside to be invested in public health. I'm open to exploring this issue. I don't think we have the powers for a mandatory levy, but I'm happy to look at exploratory work to give us a fuller understanding of the outcome of introducing the legislation and to better understand any increase in revenue for retailers and where the supply chain loads would fall, to try and understand if a voluntary scheme would produce a real return to invest in public health.

As I say, minimum unit price is not a silver bullet, Llywydd. It must be seen as part of our wider approach to reduce alcohol consumption and to have a healthier relationship with alcohol. So, policy here in Wales requires a variety of approaches that, taken together, can engender real and meaningful change and real and meaningful health gain. So, we look to use all levers of support available throughout Wales to develop healthier relationships with alcohol and end the sad spectre of people who die from drinking.

I call on the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I’m very pleased to contribute to this debate this afternoon as Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I’d like to start by thanking my fellow committee members. Our scrutiny of the Bill has been very thorough, and we’ve been able to develop clear recommendations for the Cabinet Secretary. I’d also like to take this opportunity to say that we’re grateful to everyone who took the time to write to us and present evidence to us in one of our formal meetings. We’re also very grateful to the people who gave of their time so that Members and committee staff could speak to them in less formal settings.

This is the second public health Bill of this Assembly, and the second Bill our committee has scrutinised. And although it deals with quite different policy matters compared to those contained in the first Bill, this particular Bill also has the potential to contribute to the aim of improving and protecting the health of the people of Wales.

Notwithstanding those comments, we do believe that this Bill and wider policy require further consideration. The evidence presented to us indicates a need for further action to improve the Bill, to prepare for its commencement, and to support its implementation. Further action is also needed to ensure that the impacts of minimum unit pricing are monitored and understood. We’ve made a number of recommendations that we believe will strengthen the legislation and its implementation, and will also avoid some potential unintended consequences, particularly with regard to dependent drinkers. I will focus my comments on just a few of those issues.

While we agree with the proposal to set the actual minimum unit price via secondary regulation, we believe that more extensive scrutiny opportunities should be given to this Assembly and its committees. The level of the minimum unit price is central to the success of the Bill after all. We believe the regulations should be made by a super-affirmative procedure in order to allow sufficient time for committee scrutiny, including inviting comments from stakeholders and questioning the relevant Welsh Minister, before the Assembly is required to vote on them.

We’ve heard doubts about the groups on which the legislation will have the greatest impact. The Cabinet Secretary has stated that minimum unit pricing for alcohol will have the greatest beneficial impact on hazardous and harmful drinkers. However, we received clear evidence that increasing the floor price below which alcohol cannot be sold will adversely affect drinkers who are dependent on cheap, strong alcohol such as white ciders. We are, therefore, concerned about the availability of adequate alcohol misuse treatment and support services. We’ve recommended that, before commencement of the legislation, the Welsh Government undertakes a robust assessment of the current need for alcohol treatment and support services in Wales to ensure that adequate, futureproofed provision is in place. That’s mentioned in recommendation 7.

We also believe the Welsh Government should monitor the impacts of the soon-to-be implemented regime in Scotland to ensure that any lessons learned can inform the approach to the delivery of these services in Wales. And that's recommendation 8.

We're also concerned that an unintended consequence of the legislation will be to lead some problem drinkers to substitute alcohol for more dangerous and illegal substances. We believe that the Welsh Government should commission independent research to firmly establish how much of a problem substitution is likely to be should minimum unit pricing be introduced. That's recommendation 9.

A number of stakeholders recommended that the Welsh Government imposes a levy on retailers or introduces a voluntary contribution scheme so that a share of any increased profits as a result of minimum unit pricing could be directed to healthcare and support services. We believe the Welsh Government should explore the practicalities of introducing a compulsory levy, or voluntary payment scheme, for retailers. That's recommendation 10, and a number of people spoke about that. The moneys raised by the levy should be used solely for the purpose of tackling alcohol-related harm and contributing to the wider aim of improving and protecting the health of the people of Wales.

In scrutinising this Bill, we were acutely aware that it is viewed by many with scepticism. We're also aware that there are many misperceptions about the effect that the legislation will have on certain groups. As such, we think that communicating the purpose of the legislation to both the general public and the businesses affected will be critical to its success as a health improvement measure. We note the Cabinet Secretary’s comments regarding the allocation of moneys for a communications plan, but do not believe that £100,000 is a sufficient amount to fund this work. As a result, we've recommended that the Welsh Government should review the cost estimates contained in the regulatory impact assessment for the planned communications activity with a view to increasing the total funding available for publicising the changes to businesses and for raising awareness amongst the public. That's recommendation 2.

Now, the Bill has great potential to help address some of the long-standing health concerns surrounding the effect of excess alcohol consumption in Wales. However, minimum unit pricing remains an untested theory, a philosophy, and we have heard some reservations about its suggested impact. And, as a result, the evaluation of the effect of introducing minimum unit pricing in Wales is a critical and necessary element of this legislation. We believe the Bill should be amended to include more detailed provision about the required evaluation, and we've recommended that the evaluation must make reference to a number of things, including the impacts of minimum unit pricing on moderate drinkers, dependent drinkers, substitution behaviours, domestic violence, and cross-border trade. Those issues are raised in recommendations 13 and 14.

The evidence we've received has emphasised that minimum pricing won’t be effective in and of itself, and a range of measures are needed to tackle alcohol misuse. We believe that there is merit in taking action on some of the additional measures identified by stakeholders, including requiring evidence-based health warnings from an independent regulatory body on every alcohol product label, and limiting alcohol advertising. We urge the Cabinet Secretary to fully explore all opportunities, including pressing for action at UK level, to ensure a comprehensive set of measures are in place to reduce alcohol harm.

And, to conclude, we, as a committee, broadly welcome the proposals in the Bill and believe it will contribute to the wider strategic approach to tackling alcohol-related harm in Wales. For this reason, we recommend that the Assembly agrees the general principles. Thank you very much.

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw. 

Diolch, Llywydd. May I first of all just remind Members, of course, that the purpose of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report is not to deal with the specific policy and the related evidential issues around policy, but rather to look at the technical and the legislative cogency related to the Bill and the balance of powers and the way those powers are exercised within the Bill? 

So, we reported on this Bill on 5 March and made six recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, and I hope our report proves helpful to Assembly Members in taking decisions on this Bill. The consideration of human rights is an important requirement when assessing matters of legislative competence. In light of this consideration, our first recommendation relates to human rights issues in the context of section 16 of the Bill, and this section enables authorised officers entering premises under sections 13, 14, and 15 of the Bill to take

'such other persons...as the officer considers appropriate'.

During our scrutiny, we considered the breadth of this phrase, and in particular to ensure that the power in section 16 is not misused. We noted that in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—PACE—code B requires an officer entering premises to introduce themselves and anyone they have with them. Conversely, under section 16(2) of this Bill, the officer must only

'inform the occupier of the officer's name'.

We see no reason why such a requirement should not apply to such other persons as the officer takes into the premises. For that reason, we've recommended that the Cabinet Secretary tables an amendment to section 16 of the Bill to require the occupier to be informed of the name of the persons accompanying an officer when entering premises. We believe there should be a duty on the officer to have regard to Welsh Government guidance. Our second recommendation, therefore, suggests that the Cabinet Secretary tables amendments to place a duty on the Welsh Ministers to issue guidance about the exercise of all powers and duties under the Bill and to ensure that the Bill includes appropriate duties to have regard to that guidance. As with our scrutiny of all Bills, we considered the balance between what is on the face of this Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation.

Members will be aware, as the Cabinet Secretary and the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee have already said, that the minimum unit price for alcohol is to be set using a regulation-making power that is subject to the affirmative procedure. By putting the minimum unit price in regulations, it would mean that Assembly Members could not table amendments to the Bill to set a higher or a lower price than suggested. The only option available to Assembly Members would be to accept or reject the minimum unit price as set out in the regulations, because they cannot be amended. And, as such, we believe that this approach actually restricts the power of the legislature. We therefore believe it would be better to place the minimum unit price on the face of the Bill and to provide Welsh Ministers with a power to amend that figure using regulations subject to a superaffirmative procedure. In our view, this would lead to a much more thorough debate on the central principle of the Bill, which is what the minimum unit price for alcohol should be. Recommendations 3 and 4 of our report reflect our position on these points.

In making recommendation 3, we noted the comments of the Cabinet Secretary regarding the amendments of primary legislation by secondary legislation, the so-called Henry VIII powers. This committee has consistently expressed concern at the excessive use of such powers. We've accepted there are circumstances where they represent a sensible and appropriate compromise, provided they are subject to the affirmative procedure. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to argue that significant matters of public policy should be consigned to regulation-making powers because there may be a need to change policy in the future and because legislatures do not like Henry VIII powers. Whether a matter appears on the face of the Bill should be determined by its policy significance rather than whether it may or may not need to change in the future.

I'd like to conclude, therefore, by briefly just summarising our views on the inclusion of illustrative examples on the face of the Bill, and on the inclusion of a sunset clause. We can see merit in including illustrative examples of calculations of the applicable minimum price of alcohol on the face of the Bill. However, it was our view that it may prove confusing if the minimum unit price is contained in regulations and differs from the value used in the illustrative example. It is also unclear why no illustrative example is actually included in respect of section 7. I note that the Cabinet Secretary, of course, raised and dealt with this issue in respect of his references to accessibility, and, of course, the balance between the interpretation of accessibility as opposed to the concerns that arose with the CLAC considerations with regard to a potential confusion. 

Overall, we do not consider that the Cabinet Secretary has explained with sufficient clarity why it is necessary and best to place illustrative examples on the face of the Bill as opposed to an alternative option—[Interruption.] Sorry. Yes.

Thanks for giving way. I agree with what you say about the importance of having figures on the face of the Bill in the first instance. Would you say that there is a wider issue with the Welsh Government? Certainly, in the development of the recent taxes, land transaction tax and landfill disposals tax, there was an unwillingness there of the Government to put the figures on the face of the Bill as well. For the aid of transparency, wouldn't that be beneficial in the future, in all these matters?

Well, I think there are differentiations between them. I think there was a very specific circumstance here, because the actual minimum price being on the face of the Bill, which I think is the issue that you're raising, goes to the actual root of how effective the legislation actually is in itself, and that, in the absence of that, will determine how this Assembly might wish to consider what that level is and what the impact would be on the actual consumption of alcohol, and all the things that the legislation wishes to actually deal with. 

We think an alternative with regard to the illustrative examples, though, would be to use the guidance and update it as required. This would ensure a consistent approach between actual minimum unit price and the figure used in illustrative examples. So, our recommendation 5 asked the Cabinet Secretary to address our concerns in this debate. I understand the points that the Cabinet Secretary has made, so I'm really outlining the concerns as they were expressed in the committee, and we look forward to consideration of your written responses.

Finally, we've recorded our agreement with the use of a sunset clause, as set out in section 22. We've noted the regulations under section 22(3) may make provision 'as may be necessary or expedient' and the Cabinet Secretary will be familiar with these issues, in being raised consistently by this committee: if the Bill was to be repealed, in our view the power to make 'necessary' changes would be sufficient. Consequently, our recommendation 6 requests the Cabinet Secretary to table an amendment to the Bill to delete the words 'or expedient' from section 22(3). Thank you, Llywydd.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton.

Amendment 1. Neil Hamilton

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets that the Bill will not produce the desired positive health outcomes for the people of Wales and could have a detrimental impact on vulnerable sections of our communities.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I formally move the amendment tabled in the name of my colleague Neil Hamilton.

Following our report in committee, I have been written to by many organisations, along with constituents, all opposing the minimum unit pricing. Therefore, I cannot share the premise that introducing minimum unit pricing is the correct way to address alcohol-related harm. Making alcohol more expensive will not stop people drinking to excess, and is perceived to be unfair and penalises those who drink responsibly, particularly those on low incomes.There is growing evidence that the largest group of binge drinkers are middle-aged high earners, and, according to the Welsh health survey, 47 per cent of the least deprived in Wales drink more than the recommended amount and 28 per cent of the least deprived in Wales are binge drinkers. Thirty-four percent of men and 28 per cent of women drank more than recommended limits on at least one day during the last week. Adults living in households in the highest income bracket are twice as likely to drink heavily as adults in the lowest income bracket. Evidence on purchasing behaviour presented to the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee showed that harmful drinkers in the highest income quintile are predicted to be buying 80 units a week of cheap alcohol. Increasing prices will do little to deter these people. Those in favour of minimum unit pricing for alcohol often point to Canada as a shining example of the policy working, but evidence from British Columbia shows that, between 2002 and 2011, alcohol-related deaths actually rose, as did hospital admissions attributable to alcohol. We should have learnt from tobacco-control measures that increasing prices does not deter heavy smokers; it just makes them poorer. And my concern here has always been the plight of children in a family where parents drink quite heavily. Often, with alcohol price increases, the children often go without and have a much poorer quality of life, therefore increasing inequality.

I'm afraid that minimum unit pricing will only lead to an increase in profits for the supermarkets, and do little to encourage responsible drinking. There are concerns highlighted by the Huggard centre that such legislation could lead to those struggling with alcohol addiction being pushed into cheaper and readily available illegal drugs, like spice. There is also concern that this legislation could fuel a move into black-market alcohol, as we have seen with the tobacco trade, which has seen the trade in fake cigarettes containing very harmful chemicals explode.

We also have to consider the fact that there are health benefits from responsible alcohol consumption, and more than 100 studies have shown that drinking one or two units of alcohol a day can actually reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases by as much as 45 per cent. However, I acknowledge that drinking more than the recommended intake increases your risk of liver disease, can damage your heart and increase your chances of developing certain cancers. It is a balance that the majority of us manage, but sadly, many do not.

I agree with the Welsh Government that we have to do something to tackle the hundreds of alcohol-related deaths and tens of thousands of alcohol-related hospital admissions that occur each year. Minimum unit pricing, I feel, is not the way. We have to better educate the public about the harms of alcohol, and better help those addicted to alcohol, but not penalise those who drink responsibly. Thank you.

I'd like to begin my contribution by indicating that the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting this Bill at Stage 1. However, we do so with a very long list of caveats and concerns that we would like to see addressed over the coming stages, and in the amendments that we will be intending to put forward.

We believe that the Government should be wise in legislating. You don't just legislate for legislation's sake. We have to be crystal clear as to what the gains will be of passing legislation that is targeted at a very, very small number of people, and we should remember, in all of our conversations, that alcohol in itself is not a problem. It is perfectly legitimate, and it is perfectly well used by a great many people throughout the world. The issue is that some people have a problem with how they deal with alcohol, and we need to be laser-like in our focus as to how we can support those people and put them back onto a way where they can have a much better outcome for their health in the long term.

Whilst reviewing this during the Stage 1 debate, one of the concerns that came to me—and I was very pleased to note that the Finance Committee also reiterated that—is that actually there is a lack of statistical evidence as to what the benefits will be of a minimum unit alcohol price. When I listened to the evidence before us, Cabinet Secretary, I had two thoughts. There was one group who have based a very large and very opinionated set of parameters, if you like, totally on modelling, and there was the opposite group, who were actually putting forward why we shouldn't do it, why we shouldn't go ahead. But they were very subjective in their evidence. What I didn't get any sense of was a real clear, 'Here is the evidence; you make your decision'. It was so opinionated, either one way or the other, throughout the whole of the evidence session, that I would like to try to flesh out in the next stage a much clearer sense of real, hard empirical research that shows where minimum unit pricing can really help to bring people off of a disastrous path in terms of their complex relationship with alcohol.

The Finance Committee actually said—and I'm quoting—that 

'there is no statistical evidence that introducing a MUP will lead to a reduction in alcohol consumption.'

Given what I said at the very beginning about when you make legislation you have to make it responsibly, you have to have a very clear view of what it is you're trying to achieve. That, I think, Cabinet Secretary, is one of the clear responsibilities that you as a Government must fulfil in the next stage of this Bill. We must be absolutely crystal clear as to what we're going to achieve and make sure we've got the evidence for it. If that evidence isn't there, we need to think long and hard about whether or not we should sit back and wait and see what the experiment in Scotland does before we follow it. And I do understand that there are a lot of other reasons why the Welsh Government wants to process this—because of the timescales connected with Brexit et cetera—but I think that it is our responsibility to look at that. [Interruption.] I'm sorry, please forgive me. I do think that we absolutely agree, the Welsh Conservatives—[Interruption.] I have water, thank you—with the response from CLAC and about how we should look at putting on the face of the Bill certain key parameters as to how we will move forward with this, and I'd like to see that explored in Stage 2 as the Government goes forward.

I would like us to have a very long, hard look at the substitution effect. I think that this is something that has been glossed over. Again, when we looked at the evidence base that we had coming before us, we asked as a committee, time and time again, that we should be able to find evidence from drugs charities and from other groups who deal with people who have substance misuse as to what the journey might be for somebody who has an addiction issue. There wasn't that evidence out there. It's something that people haven't done research on, which I personally did find quite extraordinary. There just wasn't enough hard-hitting stuff that could say that, if somebody is addicted to alcohol or has a complex relationship with alcohol, that enables them to go out and do binge drinking or any other harmful exercise with, they won't necessarily go on a journey that might bring them to another substance. I think that, during Stage 2, the Welsh Conservatives would like to see an awful lot more work done on that whole substitution theory. We went out and talked to the Huggard centre. We have talked to some of the other charities. The evidence must be there. Welsh Government: it is incumbent on you to go out and dig out that evidence, so that here in this legislature, we can make a really clear decision about whether or not this is going to actually target the people who most need it.

Finally—there are lots of points that I'd like to make, but I'm very aware that I'm running out of time—Presiding Officer, I would like to talk about the impact on family incomes for those just about managing. We talk about, as I've discovered—. I'll be honest with you: I didn't realise that the word 'cider'—I always thought that that meant it had to have an apple in it. We discovered that there are ciders out there that have never seen an apple, never been near an apple, and are just pure chemicals. These are the kinds of things that you are trying to eradicate through this Bill, and, you know, I think that's a very worthwhile aim. However, there are a lot of people who are only just managing who will go out and buy value brands. They are drinking responsibly. It is, you know, one of the enjoyments that they have in life. But, a value brand will also be really badly hit by the minimum unit alcohol pricing Bill. You could look at perhaps an older person who goes out and buys a four-pack of cider—not the ones that I don't think I'm allowed to mention that have never seen an apple, but the ones that are just above that, but are value brands. Their drinking bill would be increased by about £150 a year. These are people that don't have very much money, it's a very small pleasure, they are not doing anything wrong, and they are not being irresponsible. I think that, as Caroline may have mentioned in her contribution, we must make sure that this Bill is equitable and fair. It doesn't mean that those who have got money but drink irresponsibly can carry on doing it, and those who don't drink irresponsibly but for whom a little drink is a necessary part of their life—they end up being penalised unfairly. I think that that would defeat all of the objectives of equity that I would hope that the Welsh Government would want to promulgate. 

So, I do ask for your forgiveness for my inability to deliver this in a more quick and timely fashion. We will support it at this stage, but there are a lot more questions to be asked. Welsh Government: it is incumbent on you to provide some of these answers if you wish the Welsh Conservatives to continue to support this Bill to fruition. 

'Principle' is the important word today, and I will begin by confirming that I do agree with that fundamental principle underpinning this Bill—that there is scope to look at financial incentives in order to reduce dangerous use of alcohol. Alcohol costs us a great deal as a society. It costs lives, and when you have evidence before you suggesting that this Bill, if it would become an Act, could save 65 lives per annum, then you take that evidence seriously. There are positive impacts for pubs here, too. Prices in pubs won’t increase, and that appeals. I hope it would also encourage producers to produce drinks that have a lower level of alcohol—that’s also a positive. The aim is laudable, therefore, and we as Plaid Cymru will be voting in favour of the principle today.

But, as we’ve heard from many speakers already, we do need to strengthen the Bill, but we also need to strengthen the evidence base underpinning what is before us today. To a great extent, we have been almost entirely reliant on research from the Sheffield research group. Now, I have no reason to doubt the validity of that work in any way whatsoever, but our inability to study other models sufficiently and to learn from other experiences in terms of what we want to do is a disadvantage. There is no getting away from that. And it is very important that we continue to challenge that evidence during the legislative journey of this Bill. We must persuade the public of the efficacy of the legislation and the fairness of the legislation too. We need to look in detail—

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

I'm very grateful, Rhun, for your taking my intervention, but I just wanted to reiterate again what you've just said. Modelling is not the same as evidence. Evidence is based on what has happened. Modelling always has assumptions in it, and assumptions can always be skewed one way or the other.

Both are actually useful, and we're slightly lacking on both fronts—either theoretical modelling or evidence.

As I was saying, we need to persuade the public of the fairness and effectiveness of what we are trying to do here. We need to look in detail at this conclusion that introducing this Bill would only cost £3 per annum for a moderate drinker—£3 per annum. We can’t ignore scenarios where this legislation could have a great deal more of an effect on moderate drinkers who have a lower income and, as a result, choose cheaper drinks, as we’ve heard mentioned by other Members. In addition to the Sheffield centre suggesting that moderate drinkers would only drink 2.4 fewer units in a year, then the government needs to prove that the additional cost is worthwhile in terms of their health.

It’s clear, however, that this legislation has been drawn up mainly to discuss those drinking at dangerous levels and, more so, those drinking at damaging levels, and there is very strong evidence, without doubt, that it could lead to a significant reduction in the use of alcohol among these groups, and that is a positive thing. I’m sure we can agree on that, but—and there is a ‘but’ here—again, there are fears that some of those drinkers could turn to other drugs. Again, we need clarity on the evidence. We would need assurances that further resources would be invested in helping those users, helping them to battle their alcohol misuse and the impact that that has on their families and their children. We cannot look at introducing a financial incentive to encourage people to drink less without considering the whole range of support services that need to be developed and invested in. 

Which brings us to another issue: by increasing the cost of certain drinks, then producers and retailers will be free to make a greater profit, and I do think that the Government must outline a route towards a situation where we could get hold of some of that money that’s changing hands in order to make the necessary investments in services to tackle misuse and to help those who do misuse alcohol. The truth of the situation is that the most effective way of doing what we’re trying to do here would be for us in Wales to have the power to tax alcohol. We could then totally redefine, if we chose to do that, how alcohol taxation in Wales would work. We could help pubs, if we choose to do that. We could tax and target the high-volume drinks that are high-percentage alcohol, such as the apple-free cider that we’ve heard mentioned, while retaining the funds in the public purse.

And in terms of that debate on the need for us in Wales to have the power to take action as we truly need to do, that’s where I’ll finish, Presiding Officer. This is legislation that is against the clock, and that is because of what we on these benches warned about at the time, namely that the Wales Act, the Westminster Act, which came into force against our will, actually withdraws the powers that we had to legislate in this area from this place and will do that in the near future. If we need to take action, we need to take action now, or we will not have those powers. And we do support the principle. What we need assurances on is that we are taking the right steps to protect the health and the other interests of our citizens here in Wales. It’s the UK Parliament that’s put us in this corner.

I want to speak briefly in support of the general principles of the proposed legislation. I do believe that the ill effects of excessive alcohol consumption are well documented and the effects on people's health and the ill health that results in is, again, well established and accepted. And of course it also impacts on the wider family, as well as the individual who drinks too much. There's a relationship with damage to the economy in terms of time lost from work and a lot of evidence that excessive alcohol results in violent crime, violence against women, and a considerable amount of other crime. So, anything that reduces abuse of alcohol I think is very valuable indeed.

I think there is a lot of evidence that price is closely related to consumption, and indeed over-consumption. So, I think the rationale behind this legislation is very strong indeed, Llywydd, in recognising that there's a problem with cheap, strong alcohol. And if we increase the price of that cheap, strong alcohol we will do something significant and important to address these problems and issues. As the Cabinet Secretary said, we are aware, all of us, that this isn't the single solution to the problems of over-consumption of alcohol in Wales. There's a range of approaches that will help us achieve the necessary progress, but this is a significant and important part of that. 

The only other thing I'd like to say, Llywydd, is that, as others have mentioned, obviously an important part of making necessary progress will be to ensure that we have the right support services available right across Wales to help people address their over-consumption of alcohol problems, given the focus that this legislation will bring to those issues. I'm very familiar with the work of Kaleidoscope, for example, and the Gwent drug and alcohol services, which I believe are very important and beneficial in my area, and I know there are other similar services right across Wales, along with a range of other more general approaches to our health sector. It will be very important that we ensure that those services are adequate to deal with what may well be an increased demand for the services if this legislation is, as I hope it will be, implemented. Again, I know the Cabinet Secretary is very much alive to those issues also.

UKIP will be opposing this resolution today. I'm sorry to see that none of the other parties in the Assembly will do so as well. In his introduction, the Cabinet Secretary said that this is a targeted measure. It is in one sense because it targets the many without actually benefiting the few who drink irresponsibly. Whereas most people like a drink and they drink responsibly, there is a very small minority that cause problems for themselves and for the rest of society. The key question is—. Nobody doubts the ill effects of excessive drinking, which John Griffiths has just alluded to, but the question is whether a measure of this kind is likely to be effective in targeting those people. The evidence, such as it is, proves the opposite, in fact, and this comes out in the report of the health committee and, indeed, the evidence that we received in the Finance Committee as well.

I'm afraid that Angela Burns is seeking the holy grail if she thinks that econometric studies or any mathematical study is likely to shed a great deal of light on this issue. International comparisons are almost impossible to compare with the situation in any other country, because the cultural assumptions of different countries differ enormously, and the institutional world in which people drink is very, very different from country to country. The Sheffield study that was referred to earlier on actually makes the rather surprising assumption that it's the heaviest drinkers who'll be most responsive to an increase in price. That's really counterintuitive. The people who are least likely to be affected by an increase in price are those who are most dependent upon alcohol, so they will carry on drinking—  

Will the Member take an intervention? 

Yes, sure. 

So, when the price of cigarettes was increased, did that increase or decrease the actual consumption of tobacco? 

Well, that's not the question. The question is amongst those who are really addicted: addicts. We don't know, of course, what the minimum price is going to be. Of course, if you increase the minimum price of alcohol by £5 rather than 50p, it would have a dramatic effect, but until we know what the minimum unit price is going to be, we can only talk in general terms. But what we can say, I think, with reasonable confidence is that the people who are least likely to change their behaviour as a result of a moderate increase in price are those who are most dependent upon alcohol. They will actually spend less on other things in order to feed their addiction. That is the nature of addiction, I would have thought.

There's been a study done of British Columbia, which did introduce minimum pricing, which has been cited as a justification for this Bill, but, actually, that also suffers from all sorts of methodological flaws. For one thing, the sale of liquor in British Columbia is entirely a state monopoly, and that's very different from the situation in this country. A fall in crime was attributed in British Columbia to the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol without, of course, saying that similar falls in crime were experienced everywhere else in Canada that didn't have a minimum price for alcohol.

Indeed, these are global trends as well. We've seen a dramatic reduction, actually, in levels of alcohol consumption generally in this country in recent years—a 12 per cent fall between 2004 and 2011. So, disentangling all these different effects from a single cause is almost impossible to achieve. So, I think we should argue about this in general terms, rather than trying to introduce some kind of bogus mathematical exactitude that is likely to shore up or undermine the prejudices with which we come to the debate. 

We know that in some countries there are much higher levels of alcohol consumption than in this country, and yet they have fewer problems of excessive drinking. France is one of them, which was referred to in the health committee's report in paragraph 73. In paragraph 75 in this report as well, it states that in the United Kingdom alcohol consumption has gone down in recent years, but there's been no parallel decline in alcohol-related harm. So, these two things are not necessarily connected. If this is going to be a targeted measure, it has to target the people who are the problem, not the overwhelming majority of people who drink alcohol who are no problem to anybody at all, even to themselves.     

There will be ill effects that the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol will have on the poor and those who are on the lowest incomes, as many people have pointed out in the course of this debate. The champagne drinkers are not going to be affected by this measure, but those who go and buy a few cans of lager at Aldi or Lidl or wherever will be affected, and I think it is an unfair measure that cannot be anything other than regressive. 

I'd like to draw attention also to paragraph 178 of the health committee's report about the likely impact upon the homeless and those who are problem drinkers who live on the streets, and what is likely to happen to those. That shows that, in fact, their problems could actually be made worse as a result of measures of this kind. I haven't the time to go into the detail of it now, but we'll have plenty of time in the course of this Bill's process through to explore these things in detail. I certainly think that the point that has come out of almost everybody's speech today is that we need to have an evidence base to any decision that is ultimately made.

I'd like to speak in support of this Bill. It's an important Bill designed to tackle a social evil that has been with us for far too long. It's also a Bill to which a commitment was made in the 2016 Welsh Labour manifesto, a manifesto that I was proud to be elected on.

I want to thank the Members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Finance Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I think they've done an important job in scrutinising the Welsh Government’s proposals and also suggesting areas where the Bill could be strengthened.

The principles underpinning the case for a minimum unit price are quite clear-cut, but it is a fact that excessive alcohol consumption causes harm. It's a fact that in 2015 there were 463 alcohol-related deaths in Wales. And it is also a fact that in 2015-16 there were over 50,000 hospital admissions attributed to alcohol misuse.

Alcohol abuse causes crime and anti-social behaviour. It damages our economy and moreover it is corrosive to family life. The Westminster all-party group on children of alcoholics have done some work on this that has been really crucial in showing its impact. They suggest that, around the UK, one in five children lives with a parent who drinks too much. That’s over 2.5 million children. The all-party group notes that these children are twice as likely to experience difficulties at school as their peers, three times more likely to consider suicide, five times more likely to develop eating disorders, and four times more likely to become alcoholics themselves.

We must take action to deal with this problem, and the Welsh Government has clearly set out why a minimum unit price is the way forward. It has also set out a few of the beneficial impacts of a 50p minimum price. Annually, this could lead to 53 fewer deaths, 1,400 fewer hospital admissions, and be worth, in effect, £882 million-worth of savings to the Welsh economy.

However, there are a couple of issues I want to flag up today. Firstly, while I was conducting my research for today, I came across another interesting statistic. Last year, 51 million bottles of gin were sold in the UK. That’s nearly 10 million up on the previous year. Now, I don’t want to get drawn into a discussion around craft gins, but by presuming that this is linked to more middle-class patterns of consumption, this helps me illustrate my first point. The Bill’s measures seem focused on the cheapest, strongest forms of alcohol. If people can afford to pay more, won’t they just spend more money on alcohol? Will minimum unit pricing help us to tackle more affluent problem drinkers? Or will it just hit those who can least afford to pay the price hike?

Secondly, I want to mention an issue that was raised during the Supporting People workshop held by the Public Accounts Committee. Concerns were raised there that minimum pricing could, as an unintended consequence, fuel anti-social behaviour, as desperate people—addicts—resort to desperate measures to fuel their addiction. I would be keen for the thoughts of the Cabinet Secretary on how we could make sure that this is not the case.

Going forward, I would hope any minimum pricing is kept under annual review. I know this is something that committee scrutiny of the general principles has suggested. [Interruption.]

As you mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee—and clearly we were both involved with that evidence session on Supporting People—. Would you agree with me that I think everyone in this Chamber is united in wanting to deal with the problems that you've identified very clearly in your speech? The question is: will this particular measure really deliver that change? Because I think at the moment the sense I'm getting is that there's not a conviction in this Chamber that it does.

I think that the Bill has to be seen as part of a suite of measures, really, to tackle that, which we wouldn't have time to go into today.

But placing this under annual review would also help to reassure those of my constituents who've contacted me about the Bill. It would enable us to monitor its effect. It would also allow us to keep an eye to see if there are any problems caused by our porous border with England, and it would also allow us to review if the moneys raised by minimum pricing could, in time, revert to the Welsh Government.

The health committee has recommended the Government explore whether a compulsory levy or a voluntary payment scheme for retailers could be set up. The moneys raised would be solely for tackling alcohol-related harm. If this was possible, it would certainly be something that I would be very supportive of.

To close, I want to again repeat my support for the Bill. Arguments have been marshalled in this Chamber against the Bill, but I don’t think that they are any more convincing than those that were used against the smoking ban, and that has succeeded in reducing the number of adults who smoke. I hope that this Bill has similar success on problematic alcohol consumption.

I will keep my contribution short because most points have already been made. Alcohol addiction is a serious illness that has devastating effects not just on the individual but on the wider family and friends. I welcome the fact that the Government is looking to try and address the problems in society caused by this illness, but I do find the idea of legislation on the price of alcohol rather misguided.

The Assembly’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee claims the measure, and I quote,

'would not be a silver bullet' that will address all alcohol-related harm, and it actually could have unintended consequences. And it is those that I wish to address now.

There is the potential danger of driving heavy drinkers towards other behaviours that will negatively affect their health, including diverting money away from food and their home in order to purchase alcohol and substituting alcohol for unregulated, illegal substances. This may also affect their children and the wider family. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Government, as many others have previously, to look at other ways of tackling this addiction, like education and support, instead of, and certainly alongside, the minimum pricing of alcohol.  

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to Members who have contributed to today's debate on the general principles of the Bill. There have long been calls for Wales to change its relationship with alcohol across political parties, and I expect this Bill to make a real and material contribution to reducing hazardous and harmful drinking and, ultimately, to save lives.

I want to thank Members from a variety of different parties—the Conservative group, the Plaid Cymru group and, indeed, the health committee—for indicating their support for the Bill today, and I recognise that there's more to do as we move into Stage 2 to see some of the details, some of the points, and of course the written response of the Government to the recommendations that I've indicated.

I do want to try and outline and deal with some of the issues raised in the debate, and in particular some of the points made in Dai Lloyd's contribution, but also in Vikki Howells's and I believe at least in part in Angela Burns's contribution as well, and this is the point about the end point at which we have more evidence. That's why we recognise that this is an innovative approach to public health legislation. It's based on modelling that helped Scotland to take this step forward as well for their own minimum unit price Bill, and they've used a range of statistical evidence to model the potential impact of this, and I think that's an entirely reasonable basis on which to proceed, and I do have confidence in their modelled evidence. But we recognise that it is innovative and we want to understand the impacts of it. That's why, in the Government's Bill, we've proposed a sunset clause. We propose that we must have an evaluation at the end of that five-year period to understand the impact of minimum unit pricing if the Government then asks the Assembly to agree that a minimum unit pricing regime should continue into the future. So, there's something here about whether we are prepared to take this step to have this regime introduced, but, in any event, even if we do—and I hope we do—we will get to a point where we'll have an evaluation of the real impact here in Wales in our context.

I recognise some of the comments made by both the health committee and, indeed, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee about what should and shouldn't be on the face of the Bill. I'll think again about some of the comments made about what should be on the face of the Bill and in particular about the evaluation. I think I want to take some care though that trying to prescribe on the face of the Bill matters that must be in the evaluation at this point in time as opposed to running through what should be in the evaluation in more than five years' time after that experience of the Bill in practice—I'd be nervous about prescribing a range of matters on the face of the Bill at this point. But I think I would be able to give some confidence to Members about the approach that the Government would take on what to include in any evaluation to make sure it's real and meaningful for Members who will then be asked—potentially asked—to continue with a minimum unit pricing regime. That's something we will need to discuss through Stage 2 and, I hope, beyond.

I recognise some of the technical points made by CLAC. I'm thinking about the point about named officers. I'll reflect on that and particularly the analogous provisions that you reference from PACE. I still don't agree that the minimum unit price should be on the face of the Bill. There again there's a disagreement between the constitution committee and indeed the health committee, as well, on that point, and I tried to address that in my opening remarks. But, with respect, I don't accept that having the price on the face of the Bill will help to determine its success. There's more to it than that.

On UKIP, we have a straightforward disagreement that I don't think there's much point in spending much time on outlining again today. We understand that we disagree. On the point about responsible legislation, Angela, again, I recognise the point that you're making, particularly the points made by you and others on substitution. That's why I've asked the advisory panel on substance misuse to undertake an evidence review in this area and to publish that as well, so Members will see that as we proceed through Stage 2, and that should be within a matter of weeks, not months, for Members to see.

I think there's something here in some of the contributions about both the principle of setting a minimum unit price, but then what the level should be and then to understand the impact of that upon moderate drinkers as well. Again, there's more for us to do, as the Bill proceeds, on how that can happen, on the evidence that is available from the modelling and the store that Members should set by that when being asked to actually approve this piece of legislation.

I recognise the points that Rhun made about the potential lifesaving impact of this legislation and, again, the points made both by Vikki Howells and John Griffiths too. I've indicated that we will look to have more money going into front-line services. We want more people to engage in front-line services to help them with alcohol and other substance misuse challenges. We'll always have to think about the level of need coming into those services and making sure that they are well managed, but also properly funded. 

With respect, I do disagree that taxation is the answer. This is part of what went through the court cases, where the alcohol industry said taxation should be the answer. The problem is that retailers can get around taxes and they do at present; they avoid the impact taxation should have on the price that is paid and they run alcohol as loss leaders. A minimum unit price sets a floor below which you cannot proceed, and that is where you ensure that there has to be a minimum unit price, otherwise we'd simply be left with a situation where we wouldn't have moved much beyond where we are today.

But I do recognise what Vikki Howells said about the scale of our challenge and our relationship with alcohol. This Bill is supposed to be part of the answer, but not a silver bullet. It does not replace the need for further education and understanding of the choice that we make as citizens, but it is part of our wide range of approaches to try and have real gain for every community across Wales and a different relationship with alcohol, and I hope that Members will support this Bill here today.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.