Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 6:43 pm on 9 May 2018.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues raised in today's debate. We will be voting against the motion tabled by UKIP. We believe that this Bill will help to make a real difference in reducing hazardous and harmful levels of alcohol and drinking, and the harms this causes to communities across Wales.
The Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill was introduced into this National Assembly on 23 October last year. It is already, as Suzy Davies has noted, the subject of a detailed and rigorous scrutiny process, as is the case with all legislation. Scrutiny will continue as the Bill progresses through Stage 3. I do not believe that today's grandstanding from UKIP and their fellow travellers should be allowed to torpedo this Assembly's scrutiny of this important piece of public health legislation.
There is a strong policy rationale for introducing a minimum price for alcohol in Wales. A commitment to legislate in this area has featured in the last two Plaid Cymru manifestos—that not just the Plaid Cymru group stood on, of course—and I'm grateful to both Rhun ap Iorwerth and Dai Lloyd for their sensible and constructive speeches, in particular the case made by Dai Lloyd for the harm caused by alcohol on the imperative to act. It is also, of course, a long-standing commitment of this Government. It is backed by international evidence that confirms that the price of alcohol does matter. And as we heard the Chair of the health committee refer to evidence submitted, the Federal Office of Public Health in Switzerland, who did respond to the Stage 1 evidence, highlighted the impacts of a decrease in the cost of spirits led to a direct and almost immediate increase in consumption. There is an undeniable relationship between the price of alcohol and the amount that we drink, and there is also, of course, as we heard from Dai Lloyd and John Griffiths, a strong relationship between the amount that someone drinks and the harm that they experience. This Bill is a part of helping to reduce those harms. And I do accept that the evidence base for introducing this legislation is based on the modelled impacts, but the evidence is as comprehensive and persuasive as it can be, and I do have confidence in the analysis undertaken by the University of Sheffield. It is the same evidence base that the Scottish Parliament acted on to introduce their legislation on a minimum unit price.
We have, of course, consulted twice on the introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol—once in 2014, as part of a public health White Paper, and once in 2015, as part of a draft Bill, when I was the then Deputy Minister for health—and both times the Welsh Government’s intention to bring forward this public health measure has been well received. That was also the case at the end of last year with the evidence provided during Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions during the scrutiny of the Bill, we will also consult again on the proposed level of a minimum unit price, should this Assembly pass the Bill.
The health committee heard powerful evidence from both service providers and from experts within the field of public health. There has been considerable support from stakeholders in England, not just doctors but a range of other stakeholders, and they hope, as do I, that the UK Government will finally follow the example being set here in Wales and in Scotland. This legislation takes a sensible and targeted approach to a very real and evident problem in Wales today.
Like so many other western countries, here in Wales we have a problem with cheap, strong, readily available alcohol. We see the effects of harmful drinking every day in our NHS, in our workplaces, in communities, and in families. Published research this year shows that hazardous and harmful drinkers in Wales make up 28 per cent of the drinking population, but they consumed three quarters of all alcohol. In 2015-16 alone, there were 54,000 hospital admissions in Wales attributed to alcohol. Direct healthcare costs attributed to alcohol amount to an estimated £159 million a year. When Neil Hamilton read out figures and statistics about the harm caused, I'll repeat again what I said from my seat: over 500 people die every year because of alcohol. There is a powerful reason to act, and every one—every one—of those deaths was preventable. I have never said, though, that this legislation will be a panacea—far from it—but it will be one more way to help us to tackle and prevent alcohol-related harm. We already invest almost £50 million a year to support people with substance misuse issues. Almost half of this funding goes directly to the seven area planning boards, who commission substance misuse services for their region, and a further £18 million is ring-fenced for substance misuse services within health boards.
During Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the passage of this Bill, a number of issues have been raised and debated, particularly in relation to the impacts of this legislation on particular groups within society, on the importance of providing services to those who need help and support, and the importance of considering the impacts of a minimum unit price on moderate drinkers and low-income households. The evidence that we do have from the modelling undertaken by the University of Sheffield shows that moderate drinkers will be largely unaffected by the introduction of a minimum unit price. Moderate drinkers typically do not drink large amounts of alcohol, and are less likely to drink cheap, high-strength alcohol.
We do expect there will be an impact on people in low-income households who drink at hazardous and harmful levels. This is, of course, the area where we expect the largest health gains to be made. People with the least resources who drink at harmful levels are much more likely to experience alcohol-related illness, requiring long-term and significant healthcare. They are also much more likely to die from their drinking. The most recent figures show that people in our least well-off communities are nearly three times as likely to die from alcohol as people in our most advantaged communities.