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.