The next group of amendments is group 3, and this group of amendments relates to the limitation of profit-making opportunities. Amendment 6 is the lead and only amendment in this group, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move and speak to his amendment. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 6 (Rhun ap Iorwerth) moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. This amendment is one that has been designed to tackle an issue of concern in relation to implementing such an Act in Wales, and it's also an issue that was something of an obstacle in terms of similar legislation in the Scottish Parliament. Strangely enough, it is an obstacle that led to Labour ultimately voting against the legislation. I am talking of the likelihood that there would be additional profit that could be made by retailers as a result of introducing this legislation. Now, this is not something that we would wish to see taking place. I will refer back to what I said at the outset, which is that it is through taxation that we would really wish to seek a way to use pricing as a tool against excessive consumption of alcohol. If taxation was used, the public purse would benefit from legislation that would vary the price.

Of course, in this context, we are not bringing money into the Welsh Treasury—that is not the intent—rather it is to set a policy in place as a public health tool, and, in truth, it is not about dealing with the financial question that arises at the root of what we are doing. Again, these limitations on our powers as a Parliament are at play here. We have thought and scratched our heads in considering many ways that we could ensure that the retailers that will make more profit by having to sell alcohol at a higher price—that that money could somehow be collected and, ideally, could possibly be distributed in a way that would be targeted at assisting the treating of problem drinking and alcoholism and so forth. Now, with the limitations on our legislative competence here, we haven't been able to find a way forward. Scottish Labour, because they were unhappy with seeing retailers making more profit, did vote against the legislation, but that is Scotland.

So, having failed to be able to think of a model that would work, what we have done through this amendment is try to make the legislation more fit for the future, in the hope, in all seriousness, that we will have the powers to act in the future that we do not currently enjoy, in order to ensure that, when this legislation is reconsidered in the future, and is renewed under the sunset clause, Welsh Ministers will take steps, or at least will consider steps at that point, to stop profiting from the sale of alcohol. As I say, we would like to do that now, but we cannot, but by supporting this amendment, we can ensure at least that consideration is given to this issue again when the opportunity comes before us at the sunset point. 

We will not be supporting amendment 6. We feel that the terminology is highly subjective and is unsuitable for the face of a Bill. The Cabinet Secretary did state at Stage 2 that the Welsh Government was already working with the Welsh Retail Consortium on this issue and was awaiting Wales-specific evidence to identify the impact this legislation will have on both public health and business profits, and we are content to wait for such an analysis.

You are absolutely right, Rhun ap Iorwerth: there may well be additional profits made by retailers. There may also be additional costs by retailers. There may also be different ways of being able to look at this whole and bring back moneys into the public purse to help to defray the costs of this Bill or, indeed, to support what I would like to see supported, which is alcohol and drug treatment centres. So, we will not be taking this forward. We do have a concern that this legislation may have unintended consequences, but with the monitoring in place that the Welsh Government has undertaken, this should address such concerns. 

I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I want to start by recognising that I understand the drivers behind the amendment, and I understand the goodwill that exists across a range of committees to try and make sure that retailers do not seek to make excess profits from introducing minimum unit pricing. However, the Government won't be able to support the amendment before us today. It's worth while starting with the Supreme Court decision, which, in acknowledging that the Scottish Bill was within their competence, they also acknowledged that the minimum unit pricing regime is novel and innovative, and that there are acknowledged uncertainties by a range of people about any potential increase in revenue for retailers and where in the supply chain that increase in revenue might fall. But it's also part of a challenge, because we hope to see some innovation from industry in response to the Bill. For example, one consequence may be that we see more producers going back to having slightly less high-strength alcohol in a range of their products. So, legislating on this matter before that time may not be appropriate. But more than that, I have to go back to remind Members about my initial comments.

This is a piece of public health legislation. What this amendment seeks to do is to essentially have a way to look at the business operation of a range of alcohol retailers and to take what must be, to be effective, you would assume, financial measures, by introducing a form of compulsory levy. The risk there is that I believe that that would guarantee a challenge to the competence of the Bill. We are being asked as an Assembly to consider the policy, and the public health basis as our competence to pass it, and I do not wish to see the potential health gains that we believe will be made by introducing this piece of legislation delayed by further court battles.

Not only that, though—I think we need to consider the wording of the amendment itself, when it talks about inhibiting the ability to make profits. It doesn't set out how Welsh Ministers should deal with that. There would be a challenge, therefore, about how it introduced effective regulation to do so, if the evidence were there that alcohol retailers in different sectors had done so. The other problem, of course is—. We had an earlier amendment that talked about the importance of the pub sector and the reality that this may actually mean that the pub sector makes more profit as a result of the introduction of a minimum unit price. The amendment we have before us does not say which retailers we should prevent from making additional profits; it talks about alcohol retailers, which would include the pub sector as well. If Members wish to try and provide a way to only go after a certain element of alcohol retailers, then you'd need to have a differently drafted amendment to do so. This simply doesn't do it. Every single alcohol retailer covered will be covered by the amendment before us, and I do not believe that that is the intention of Rhun ap Iorwerth in moving the amendment.

What I do want to reiterate to Members across parties is that the Welsh Government continues to engage with the industry, as Angela Burns recognised, in having a conversation about the potential for voluntary action, to understand where profits have been made and to understand where those retailers have a continuing responsibility to act. I also believe this will be an area where different retailers will want to make positive and anticipatory choices about the way in which they act in this particular area.

So, I do recognise the need for the Government to continue to report back to the Assembly through committee on the work that we are doing with alcohol retailers, in particular through the retail consortium, but I would ask Members, bearing in mind the challenges around competence, that indirect and, I'm sure, unintended consequence on some alcohol retailers, including pubs, and I'd ask Members not to support the amendment before us, but to take in good faith that the Government will continue to report back on the area of the potential for a voluntary contribution.

Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much for your responses and your comments on this amendment. I think that, in my opening remarks, I did say that we had been unable to do what we truly wanted to here, but that we did feel that it was very important to bring forward an amendment that would keep this issue alive into the future. It doesn't surprise me, in a way, that you, as other parties, have been able to find weaknesses in the way that we brought forward this amendment, because this is an issue that it isn't easy to find a solution for. Nonetheless, we will push it to a vote, and during that vote we will show how determined we are as a party to keep the pressure on, to seek and find a process in the future, with, hopefully, additional powers coming to this place, where we can draw money into the Welsh Treasury to spend on health measures and to address alcoholism and problems with drinking.

May I express my appreciation that the Cabinet Secretary himself does see a benefit in trying to draw in this money? The way that he wishes to look into it is to develop some sort of voluntary levy. I am sure that we will play our part in scrutinising that type of levy as it is developed. But, certainly, we know that there will be additional profits being made as a result of this Bill, should it be passed, and there is a need to use every opportunity to ensure that the pockets of the large supermarkets do not grow larger because of that money. And if it is possible that we can divert that money to spend on improving the health of our nation, then we should seek ways to do so.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 6. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 7, four abstentions, 39 against. And therefore amendment 6 is not agreed.

Amendment 6: For: 7, Against: 39, Abstain: 4

Amendment has been rejected

Angel Burns, amendment 3.

Not moved. 

Therefore, with the Assembly's consent, we won't consider that amendment, unless anybody opposes the fact that it isn't being moved.

Amendment 3 (Angela Burns) not moved.