Y Pwyllgor Iechyd, Gofal Cymdeithasol a Chwaraeon - Y Bumed Senedd

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee - Fifth Senedd

03/05/2018

Aelodau'r Pwyllgor a oedd yn bresennol

Committee Members in Attendance

Caroline Jones
Dai Lloyd Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor
Committee Chair
Dawn Bowden
Jayne Bryant
Jenny Rathbone Yn dirprwyo ar ran Dawn Bowden
Substitute for Dawn Bowden
Julie Morgan
Lynne Neagle
Rhun ap Iorwerth
Suzy Davies Yn dirprwyo ar ran Angela Burns
Substitute for Angela Burns

Y rhai eraill a oedd yn bresennol

Others in Attendance

Bethan Roberts Yr Adran Gwasanaethau Cyfreithiol, Llywodraeth Cymru
Legal Services Department, Welsh Government
Joanna Jordan Cyfarwyddwr Iechyd Meddwl, Llywodraethiant a Gwasanaethau Corfforaethol y GIG, Llywodraeth Cymru
Director of Mental Health, NHS Governance and Corporate Services, Welsh Government
Vaughan Gething Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Iechyd a Gwasanaethau Cymdeithasol
Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services

Swyddogion y Senedd a oedd yn bresennol

Senedd Officials in Attendance

Catherine Hunt Ail Glerc
Second Clerk
Gareth Pembridge Cynghorydd Cyfreithiol
Legal Adviser
Tanwen Summers Dirprwy Glerc
Deputy Clerk

Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.

The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.

Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:29.

The meeting began at 09:29.

1. Cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datgan buddiannau
1. Introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest

Croeso i chi i gyd i gyfarfod diweddaraf y Pwyllgor Iechyd, Gofal Cymdeithasol a Chwaraeon yma yn y Senedd. O dan eitem 1, rwy'n falch iawn i groesawu cyd-Aelodau, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet a'i gynghorwyr, a'r cyhoedd, i'r cyfarfod yma. Gallaf ymhellach egluro bod y cyfarfod yma yn ddwyieithog. Gellir defnyddio clustffonau i glywed cyfieithu ar y pryd o'r Gymraeg i'r Saesneg ar sianel 1, neu i glywed cyfraniadau yn yr iaith wreiddiol yn well ar sianel 2. Bydd y cyfarfod yma yn cael ei ddarlledu, a bydd y trawsgrifiad o'r trafodion yn cael ei gyhoeddi. A allaf fi atgoffa pobl i ddiffodd eu ffonau symudol, a hefyd atgoffa Aelodau a'r tystion nad oes angen cyffwrdd â'r meicroffonau? Fel rydych chi'n ei wybod erbyn nawr, mae'r system yn gweithio yn awtomatig. Ac os bydd yna larwm tân yn canu, a allaf fi ofyn i bobl ddilyn cyfarwyddiadau'r tywyswyr? Rydym ni wedi derbyn ymddiheuriadau oddi wrth Angela Burns, ac rwy'n falch iawn o groesawu Suzy Davies yma fel dirprwy. A hefyd, i ddechrau'r cyfarfod, mae Jenny Rathbone yma, yn dirprwyo dros Dawn Bowden.

Welcome to you all to this latest meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee here in the Senedd. Under item 1, I'm very pleased to welcome fellow Members, the Cabinet Secretary and his advisors, and the public, to this meeting. Can I explain that the meeting is bilingual? You can use the headsets to hear interpretation from Welsh to English on channel 1, or to hear amplified original sound on channel 2. This meeting will be broadcast, and a transcription of the proceedings will be published. May I remind all those present to switch off their mobile phones, and also remind Members and witnesses that you don't need to touch the buttons on the microphones? The system operates automatically. And, if an alarm should sound, may I ask people to follow the instructions of the ushers? We have received apologies from Angela Burns, and are very pleased to welcome Suzy Davies here, to substitute on her behalf. And, at the beginning of the meeting, Jenny Rathbone is here, substituting for Dawn Bowden.

09:30
2. Bil Iechyd y Cyhoedd (Isafbris am Alcohol) (Cymru): trafodion Cyfnod 2
2. Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill: Stage 2 proceedings

Symudwn ymlaen i eitem 2 ar yr agenda: Bil Iechyd y Cyhoedd (Isafbris am Alcohol) (Cymru), Cyfnod 2. Pwrpas y cyfarfod y bore yma ydy trafod y gwelliannau. Mewn perthynas â'r eitem yma, felly, dylai fod gan Aelodau o'u blaenau y rhestr o'r holl welliannau sydd wedi eu didoli, a'r gwelliannau wedi eu grwpio i'w trafod. Ac, i egluro, y rhestr o welliannau wedi eu didoli ydy'r rhestr o'r holl welliannau a gyflwynwyd, wedi eu didoli yn y drefn y mae'r adrannau yn ymddangos yn y Bil. Felly, ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn, y drefn ar gyfer trafod y gwelliannau fydd: yn gyntaf, adrannau 1 i 9, wedyn atodlen 1, wedyn adrannau 10 i 29, ac wedyn y teitl hir. Byddwch chi'n gallu gweld o'r ddogfen grwpio gwelliannau bod y gwelliannau wedi eu grwpio i hwyluso'r drafodaeth, ond mae'r drefn y cânt eu galw a'u cynnig, er mwyn gwneud penderfyniad arnynt, yn dilyn y rhestr o welliannau wedi eu didoli. Bydd angen i'r Aelodau ddilyn y ddau bapur, felly, er y byddaf yn rhoi gwybod i'r Aelodau wrth alw arnynt a ydynt yn cael eu galw i siarad yn y ddadl, ynteu i gynnig eu gwelliannau er mwyn gwneud penderfyniadau arnynt. Bydd un ddadl ar bob grŵp o welliannau. Dylai unrhyw Aelod sy'n dymuno siarad am grŵp penodol, felly, gyfleu hynny i fi yn y modd arferol. Byddaf yn galw ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i siarad am bob grŵp o welliannau. Ac ar y pwynt yna, cyn i ni symud ymlaen i'r grŵp cyntaf o welliannau, a gaf fi yn ffurfiol groesawu unwaith eto Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, a gofyn iddo fe gyflwyno ei swyddogion ar gyfer y record? Bore da.

We're turning now to item 2 on the agenda: the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill, Stage 2. The purpose of this morning's meeting is to discuss the amendments. With regards to this item, Members should have in front of them the marshalled list of amendments, and the groupings of amendments for debate. To explain, the marshalled list of amendments is the list of all amendments tabled, marshalled into the order in which the sections appear in the Bill. So, for this meeting, the order in which we consider amendments will be: first of all, sections 1 to 9, then schedule 1, then sections 10 to 29, and then the long title. And you'll see from the groupings list that amendments have been grouped to facilitate debate, but the order in which they're called and moved for a decision is dictated by the marshalled list. Members will need to follow the two papers, although I will advise Members when I call them whether they are being called to speak in the debate, or to move their amendments for a decision. There will be one debate on each group of amendments, and Members who wish to speak in a particular group should indicate this in the usual way. I will call the Cabinet Secretary to speak on each group of amendments. Before moving on to the first group of amendments, may I formally welcome, once again, the Cabinet Secretary, and ask him to introduce his officials for the record? Good morning.

I'm Joanna Jordan. I'm director of mental health, NHS governance and corporate services.

Bethan Roberts from the legal services department.

Diolch yn fawr. Wedi'r rhagymadrodd yna, felly, fe wnawn ni symud ymlaen i drafod Bil Iechyd y Cyhoedd (Isafbris am Alcohol) (Cymru) a gwelliannau yng ngrŵp 1.

Thank you very much. And, after that short preamble, we'll move on to discuss the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill, and the amendments in group 1. 

Grŵp 1: Isafbris uned (Gwelliannau 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7)
Group 1: Minimum unit price (Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7)

Mae'r gwelliannau yn y grŵp yma yn ymwneud ag isafbris uned. Grŵp 1: mae gwelliannau 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 a 7 yn fan hyn. Fel rwyf wedi ei ddweud eisoes, mae grŵp 1 yn ymwneud ag isafbris uned. Y prif welliant yn y grŵp yma ydy gwelliant 1, yn enw Angela Burns. Galwaf, felly, ar Suzy Davies, yn ei habsenoldeb hi, fel rwyf fi wedi ei ddweud eisoes, i gynnig gwelliant 1 ac i siarad am y gwelliannau yn y grŵp yma. Suzy.

The amendments in this group relate to minimum unit price. Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are contained in this group. Group 1, as I said before, relates to a minimum unit price. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 1 in the name of Angela Burns. So, I therefore call on Suzy Davies, in Angela's absence, to move amendment 1, and to speak to the amendments in this group. Suzy.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 1 (Angela Burns).

Amendment 1 (Angela Burns) moved.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Morning, everybody. Amendment 1, which I move now, and amendment 2, are the substantive amendments in this group, the remainder being consequential drafting changes. Amendments 1 and 2 seek to bring a point of certainty to a Bill that, by its very nature, is only half cooked. And what I mean by that is that, with the exception of the University of Sheffield's recent Wales-specific modelling, there is no meaningful Welsh data on which—I suspect you would argue—you could base a fixed price at this stage. And, in fairness, it's probably not the kind of policy that you could road-test with a pilot either, in order to collect preliminary Wales-specific evidence. Even so, in your response to the Stage 1 report, Cabinet Secretary, you indicated that you could not commit to even an indication of a starting price before Stage 3, until you'd looked at updated evidence and considered other relevant factors, like alcohol sales data and data about alcohol-related harm.

Now, I'm sure others may have asked you why you are introducing this Bill now, before you've collated enough Wales-based modelling, before the Wales-only data is analysed, but I'm asking why that's being done in a form that renders the Bill, as currently drafted, effectively unenforceable, with no indication of when that would be remedied. In this form, an Act could sit on the Welsh statute book, but the starting pistol on policy change will be tucked away in a drawer for who knows how long, because your algebra won't work without the 'm'—the minimum unit price. And while I actually don't have a fundamental issue with the calculation of 'm' being deferred to regulation, I can't see that, under section 1, you've placed yourself under any duty to introduce regulations or any timescale within which you must introduce them. The Scottish Act can get away with using an incomplete formula because it places an obligation on Ministers to complete that formula. You are under no such obligation to introduce regulations, and without them, as I said, the Act in this form is unenforceable, and if this amendment doesn't pass today, or you can't introduce your own amendment, you can expect us to revisit this particular point at Stage 3.

Your worked examples, which in my view should be confined to an explanatory memorandum and subsequent guidance anyway, in my view, just introduce confusion. This is primary legislation and what it needs to do is provide certainty. What we have here is uncertainty through silence on a critical figure, compounded by the introduction of illustrative figures. I think I would like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, in the absence of amendments tabled to this effect today, whether you will consider removing section 1(3), section 5(6) and section 6(6) by the time we've reached the Stage 3 debate.

Clearly, I don't have any Wales-specific evidence either to rely upon in support of a starting figure of the 50p set out in amendment 1, but then you're content to introduce a fixed penalty figure of £200 without evidence base as well in the name of certainty, I'm sure. If this Bill is going to become an Act that actually functions from the get-go, you need certainty of a figure for 'm' in your equation, and 50p may not be backed by Wales-specific evidence, but it is a figure that is very much in line with the figures from similar legislation referred to in evidence brought before this committee. It's not an unsafe figure. You use it yourself in worked examples and the existing modelled research considers it a reasonable paradigm too. The reason I'm confident of including it, despite the lack of cast-iron evidence in support of it, is because I am clear that it is only a starting point.

Amendment 2 allows for the figure to be changed through regulation, and as you'll see—I think it's in group 6—we are not content to wait five or six years for assessment; we are looking at formal reporting after two years on clearly identified criteria that will help inform any change. In those two years, three things will have happened: the Act will be functioning with the added bonus that you will be able to collect and analyse actual, real-time data on whether 50p is having in an effect and what that effect is. It'll be a benchmark, if nothing else. Secondly, retailers and consumers will have got used to the policy intention and the mechanism for calculating the minimum unit price, and thirdly, you'll have had time to collect the model data and the data on sales and alcohol-related harm, as of now, which you don't appear to currently have, otherwise you wouldn't have referenced the need for it in your response to the Stage 1 report.

I think this amendment, backed up by the safeguards offered by later amendments on the possible lifespan of a 50p figure, is a reasonable way forward to get this Act working in good time, whereas I feel that the Bill as drafted is likely to exasperate those who support its policy aims.

09:35

Diolch yn fawr, Suzy. Nawr yw'r cyfle i Aelodau eraill siarad. Yn gyntaf, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Suzy. Now there's an opportunity for other Members to speak. First of all, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. Mi wnaf fi hefyd amlinellu sut rwy'n mynd i fod yn delio efo'r grŵp yma a rhoi ychydig o eiriau o gefndir mewn perthynas â hynny hefyd, ynglŷn â'r agwedd tuag at y Bil yma yn gyffredinol. Rwyf yn cytuno efo'r egwyddor o ddefnyddio cymhellion ariannol i drio arwain at newid ymddygiad, ac rwy'n cael fy mherswadio i gefnogi'r ddeddfwriaeth ar y sail honno. Mae yna sawl agwedd ar y Bil rydw i'n anghyfforddus â nhw, yn cynnwys y potensial iddo fo gael effaith anghymesur a ddim yn hafal ar bobl sydd yn yfed yn gymedrol ac ar incwm isel ac yn y blaen, ac mae cael y pris yn iawn yn rhan bwysig iawn o sut rydym yn ymateb i'r peryg hwnnw. 

Mae yna ddadleuon gwleidyddol dros gynnig pris ar wyneb y Bil, o ran rhoi'r grym dros y pris yna, o'r cychwyn, yn nwylo'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ac nid Llywodraeth Cymru. Ond nid wyf i yn bersonol ddim wedi fy argyhoeddi eto mai 50c ydy'r pris iawn. Nid oes gen i, fel Suzy, y dystiolaeth gywir i bennu beth ydy'r pris, ond mae yna ambell ffactor yn fy meddwl i sy'n gwneud i fi feddwl bod angen gwaith ychwanegol ar hyn, ac mae yna welliannau yn cael eu cynnig yn nes ymlaen gen i sydd yn cyfeirio at yr angen, yn fy nhyb i, i gael llawer mwy o sicrwydd ynglŷn â lefel y gwaith a'r ymchwil a'r ystadegau sy'n cael eu casglu wrth osod yr isafbris hwnnw. Felly, nid wyf yn meddwl mai ar wyneb y Bil, rŵan, ydy'r amser i roi'r pris, ac mai drwy regulations ydy'r amser i wneud hynny. Ac o gael y drefn honno'n iawn, dyna ydy'r lle i osod yr isafbris. Felly, pleidleisio yn erbyn y gwelliannau yma y byddaf i.

Thank you very much, Chair. I will also outline how I will be dealing with this particular group, and maybe give a little background in relation to that also, regarding the attitude towards this Bill in general. I do agree with the principle of using financial incentives to try and lead to a change in behaviour and I am persuaded to support the legislation on that basis. There are many elements of the Bill that I'm uncomfortable with, including the potential for it to have a disproportionate effect in relation to people who drink moderately and are on low incomes, for example, and getting the price right is a very important part of how we respond to that danger. 

There are political arguments in relation to putting the price on the face of the Bill and giving the power over that price to the Assembly, not the Government, from the very beginning. But personally, I am not persuaded yet that 50p is the correct price. As Suzy said, I don't have the correct evidence to set the price, but some factors come to mind that tell me that we do need additional work in this area. For example, I'm tabling amendments, later on, that refer to the need, I believe, to have far more assurance in relation to the work and the statistics being collected in setting this minimum price. So, I don't think it's the time now to put the price on the face of the Bill, and that that should happen through regulations. In having that order of events correct, that's where we should be setting the minimum price. So, I will be voting against.

09:40

Diolch yn fawr, Rhun. Caroline Jones nesaf.

Thank you, Rhun. Caroline Jones next.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I will be abstaining on all the amendments in this group. In fact, I will be abstaining on all the amendments before us today. I thought long and hard about whether to table amendments to the Bill, and I considered tabling amendments very similar to those proposed by both Rhun and Angela, but in the end I decided against it, because there is simply no way to improve this piece of legislation. I agree with Angela that the Government should have put the minimum unit price on the face of the Bill. I agree with her that five years is too long a period to review. I also agree with Rhun that there should be an independent review of the effectiveness of the policy. But none of these amendments help address my main issue with the Bill.

It is based on unsound and untested data. There is no evidence that it will do anything other than disproportionately impact the poorest in our society. Making alcohol more expensive will not stop people drinking to excess, and is unfair to responsible drinkers. The Welsh Government should put these plans on hold until the assertions made by them can be demonstrated by hard evidence from Scotland's introduction of minimum pricing. They are determined to press ahead, and unfortunately we can't lessen the impact this Bill will have on ordinary people in Wales. I therefore find I have to abstain. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Caroline. Yr Aelod nesaf ydy Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you, Caroline. The next Member is Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you, Chair. I find the 'do nothing' approach of UKIP very difficult to understand. This has been debated for years and years, and we know that there is significant harm caused. 

I'm interested in the Conservatives' arguments. It's good to know that the Conservatives are supporting a reasonable approach to the minimum alcohol pricing, because in the past there have been uncomfortable links between the alcohol industry and the Conservative Party. However, I do agree with Rhun that this should be left to regulation by the Cabinet Secretary at the time. However, I understand that the Cabinet Secretary is due to consult with the public on this, and it would be good to have some assurances that we're not thinking of anything below 50p, because otherwise we'll just simply have the alcohol industry piling in to make all sorts of spurious arguments that this shouldn't really go ahead. So, I wonder if you could clarify that in your remarks.

Diolch yn fawr, Jenny. Galwaf ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i siarad nesaf.

Thank you very much, Jenny. I now call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and good morning. If I could start with some general comments, and then I'll deal with the points made in the debate on this particular group of amendments.

I do recognise this is a relatively novel area of policy and legislation. Only Scotland has gone ahead, and so that does mean that there is a limited real-world evidence base. We've had examples of price controls in other parts of the world—not exactly directly applicable, but some evidence. We also have examples, across the rest of the world, that where alcohol becomes cheaper, consumption rises, and we have plenty of evidence about the very real impact and harm caused by alcohol.

We have had over 500 alcohol-related deaths on average each year for a considerable period of time, and the reason why not just this Government and my party, but others too—I recognise that it's been in Plaid Cymru's manifesto for the last two Assembly elections—are committed to doing something about the price of alcohol is because of that real harm that is caused. This is a public health piece of legislation that we think will have an impact, but we do not and have never tried to say that this will be the magic bullet that will cure all problems about our relationship with alcohol. So, we ought to be clear that this is public health legislation that will have an impact—we think it will have a real impact—on saving life and reducing harm, but we don't think it'll resolve every single issue.

I also want recognise that there are sincerely held views both in opposing this Bill—I don't share them—and also views about wanting to improve and change the Bill that will run through today as well. I recognise amendments will be here to probe the Government and look for commitment on the record again, and others will simply disagree, and others where I hope we'll be able—even if we can't agree today—to work out agreement before reaching Stage 3.

So, I've listened again to the debate today and I have given consideration again to the point about whether we should put the minimum unit price on the face of the Bill, but on this I continue to share the view expressed by this committee in its scrutiny report, but also stakeholders like the Salvation Army, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists that regulation should be used to specify the minimum unit price. It is relatively unusual for the Government to take powers to amend the face of a Bill. In this instance, on the arguments advanced about providing certainty, I think we have to recognise that this is an area where we've deliberately chosen a headline calculation to make it easy to understand how you would calculate the price rather than to set the price. The reason why we've undertaken all the work with Sheffield for the modelling and the impact is to try and understand whether the direction of policy can be supported, and then the likely impact of setting a minimum unit price at different levels. We then do need to take account of the real-world data we have that will both be about consumption data and also about, as we're in this position of being roughly a year or so behind Scotland, understanding real-world evidence from Scotland too, and I'd want to take all of those things into account.

That's why I've committed before, and I'm happy to restate again, that the Government intention and commitment, should the Assembly agree to introduce a minimum unit price regime, is that we would then consult on the level of that. And the alcohol consumption data comes out every year in the summer, so we'll actually have this year's data later on this summer. We'll be able to take account of that when we are looking to set a price and actually consult widely with stakeholders. Actually I think when we get into then understanding all of the available evidence and the approach that we would take, this committee would also want to have a view on giving us advice on not just how we should go about it in terms of the consultation, but what it should be. I would be surprised if this committee did not have a view on that. And that's why I politely can't agree with Jenny to give an indication that it wouldn't be any less than 50p, because we have to think about the evidence at the time and listen to stakeholders, otherwise we're not having, if you like, the fullest and most real consultation. The modelling data from Sheffield is particularly persuasive and interesting. They've looked at the 5p changes from 35p all the way to 70p. 

I also think it's worth recognising that the work that Sheffield have done has been criticised in a letter from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, and I know that the committee have had a letter in response. And it's worth pointing out that, whilst this is a novel area, the University of Sheffield's work that we place reliance on, and also the same sort of work by the same team that the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament placed their reliance on in passing their legislation, has been peer reviewed over a 10-year period. So, this is as good as it gets and is the best available evidence out there. So, I'm confident that we can say that this is a proper basis on which to proceed and introduce this legislation.

I also note that Suzy Davies recognises that she doesn't have evidence for saying that 50p is the right level. I think we should have a proper consultation and listen to stakeholders. I think this is a bit of a finger-in-the-wind approach. I don't think there's a right way to do this, and it's also worth bearing in mind that the scheme that we'd have through the whole Act—. We have a well-worked-out policy intent behind this; we are clear about what we want to do; we have got a process to try and get there; and we've built in safeguards to try and deal with the impact of this legislation, should it be implemented. That's why we've got a sunset clause, that's why we've got an evaluation after five years, and I will go on to talk about those later on. 

This committee is asking for a superaffirmative process to set future price changes. It would be very strange if we then decided that we wouldn't have anything like that and we'd simply set the price today or in passing the Bill, regardless of the fact that it will probably take us about a year to introduce a minimum unit pricing regime if the Assembly passes the Bill. And it would be very odd, I think, to do that without taking into account the real-world evidence we'll get over that year or so before we introduce it. And we are learning lessons from Scotland, where, from when they got permission from the Supreme Court to go ahead, they took roughly six months to go ahead, and some of their stakeholders felt that was too short a period of time to get ready for a new piece of legislation. I do hope in the future that if the regime is successful, it will be easier to deal with changes to the price, and not so controversial and novel, but that's a point we can discuss later on. 

So, having thought about this, I recognise the points made by the Welsh Conservatives, but I simply disagree with them. I think it's the wrong thing to do. We do need to get up-to-date evidence, and, again, I'm happy to restate my commitment to consult before a new price is introduced for the first time, and indeed to say that I'll be interested in the views of this committee, along with other stakeholders, about how we should set that price and what price it should be. 

09:50

Diolch yn fawr, Ysgrifennydd Cabinet. A allaf alw nawr ar Suzy Davies i ymateb i'r ddadl? Suzy.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. May I now call on Suzy Davies to reply to the debate? Suzy. 

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You said in your response to the debate there that there isn't a right way to do this. Well, I think there's a wrong way to do it, and that's to introduce a Bill when, by your own admission, you haven't got all the evidence that you need in order to introduce it. And even though I accept that you want to play catch-up with Scotland a little bit and, actually, take evidence from the Scottish experience to help inform what you want to do, I still don't understand why you brought this forward now in a form that, as I mentioned, remains unenforceable until you identify a minimum unit price. And as I said upfront, I accept I haven't got the evidence for 50p. It's not entirely random because we've had evidence of the range, to which you referred yourself, that it's not an unsafe figure. But I haven't heard from you whether you're prepared to take on the obligation to introduce regulations—

No. That's just an oral commitment. We're talking about primary legislation here. If you can't give me a definite figure today, or at least a timetable for getting us a figure, you need, at the minimum, to accept that you need to take on the obligation or duty to introduce these regulations, in case some future Cabinet Secretary for health decides that they're not on this page at all and are under no obligation to clarify the formula.

So, bearing in mind what you've said, and bearing in mind that you don't seem to have taken into account the fact that this 50p idea is backed up by further amendments, which we haven't got to, and that we're not looking at five years to review this, but we're looking at reviewing it much more quickly, so that 50p figure could go out of the window before five years, I'm tempted to say that I'm still going to move this amendment, or it is already moved, I think. I won't withdraw it. There you go. Thank you. 

Ie, wel, dyna'r pwynt nesaf roeddwn i'n mynd i gadarnhau efo chi, Suzy, os hoffech symud i bleidlais ar welliant 1.

Well, that's the next point I was going to confirm with you, Suzy, whether you wanted to move to a vote on amendment 1. 

Diolch yn fawr. A allaf gyhoeddi, gan ein bod ni yn symud i bleidleisiau, os gwrthodir gwelliant 1, bydd gwelliannau 3, 5, 6 a 7 hefyd yn methu? Felly, y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 1? A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Felly, awn at bleidlais. Y cwestiwn felly: y rheini sydd o blaid gwelliant 1, a allwch chi bleidleisio drwy ddangos dwylo? Un. Y sawl sydd yn erbyn i godi eu dwylo: pump. Y sawl sydd yn ymatal: un. Felly, a gaf gyhoeddi bod gwelliant 1 wedi ei wrthod? A gan fod gwelliant 1 wedi ei wrthod, mae gwelliannau 3, 5, 6 a 7 hefyd yn methu.

Thank you very much. May I note, as we are moving to a vote, if amendment 1 is not agreed, amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7 will also fall? So, the question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll go to a vote. The question therefore is: those in favour, please raise your hands. One. Those against, please raise your hands: five. And those abstaining: one. Therefore, may I declare that amendment 1 is not approved? And as amendment 1 was not agreed, amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7 also fall.

Gwelliant 1: O blaid: 1, Yn erbyn: 5, Ymatal: 1

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 1: For: 1, Against: 5, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Methodd gwelliannau 3, 5, 6 a 7.

Amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7 fell.

Suzy, a ydych chi'n dymuno cynnig gwelliant 2?

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 2?

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 2 (Suzy Davies).

Amendment 2 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Suzy yn cytuno i gynnig gwelliant 2. Y cwestiwn ydy, felly: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 2? A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Mae yna wrthwynebiad. Felly, rydym yn mynd i gael pleidlais drwy ddangos dwylo unwaith eto. Y rheini sydd o blaid derbyn gwelliant 2, a allwch chi godi'ch dwylo? Un. Y sawl sydd yn erbyn gwelliant 2, a allwch chi ddangos? Pump yn erbyn. A'r sawl sydd yn ymatal: un. Nawr, gwrthodwyd, felly, gwelliant 2.

Suzy agrees to move amendment 2. So, the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, so we'll move to a vote through a show of hands. So, once again, those in favour of amendment 2, please raise your hands. One. Those against amendment 2, please raise your hands. Five against. And those abstaining: one. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

09:55

Gwelliant 2: O blaid: 1, Yn erbyn: 5, Ymatal: 1

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 2: For: 1, Against: 5, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

I gadarnau, gan fod gwelliant 1 wedi'i wrthod, mae gwelliannau 3, 5, 6 a 7 yn methu, ac rydym ni'n symud ymlaen, felly, at grŵp 2. Dyna ddiwedd gwelliannau grŵp 1.

Just to confirm, as amendment 1 was not agreed, amendments 3, 5, 6 and 7 fall, so we move to group 2. That concludes the group 1 proceedings.

Grŵp 2.: Gweithdrefn ar gyfer rheoliadau o dan adran 1 (Gwelliannau 15, 4, 16, 13, 21)
Group 2: Procedure for regulations under section 1 (Amendments 15, 4, 16, 13, 21)

Gwelliannau grŵp 2, rŵan—hynny ydy, y weithdrefn ar gyfer rheoliadau o dan adran 1. Mae gwelliannau 15, 4, 16, 13 a 21 yn fan hyn. Ac fel rydw i'n dweud, grŵp 2 o welliannau sydd yn fan hyn. Maen nhw'n ymwneud â gweithdrefn ar gyfer rheoliadau o dan adran 1. Y prif welliant yn y grŵp yma ydy gwelliant 15, yn enw Rhun ap Iorwerth. Felly, galwaf ar Rhun ap Iorwerth i siarad am ei welliant a gwelliannau eraill y grŵp yma. Rhun.

Group 2, now, relates to procedures for regulations under section 1. Amendments 15, 4, 16, 13 and 21 appear in this group. And as I said, group 2 relates to a procedure for regulations under section 1. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 15, in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Therefore, I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to speak to this amendment and the other amendments in this group. Rhun.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 15 (Rhun ap Iorwerth).

Amendment 15 (Rhun ap Iorwerth) moved.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. Mae yna ryw ddwy set o welliannau o fewn y grŵp yma. Mi wnaf i sôn am y ddwy set yna yn eu tro. Y cyntaf yw gwelliant 15, sydd yn nodi y dylai Llywodraeth Cymru gomisiynu a chyhoeddi ymchwil annibynnol a modelu annibynnol o'r pris sy'n cael ei ystyried cyn gwneud y rheoliadau. Mae hyn yn ychwanegu at ac yn adeiladu ar y drafodaeth rydym ni wedi bod yn ei chael hyd yma y bore yma.

Gwelliannau ydy'r rhain yr ydw i wedi eu cyflwyno i drio sicrhau bod y pris yn iawn, ac yn groes i Jenny Rathbone, a siaradodd yn gynharach, rydw i'n meddwl, o bosib, fod yna le i roi'r isafswm ychydig yn is na'r 50c. Ond eto, rydw i'n gwneud y pwynt na wn i hynny heb i'r modelu gael ei wneud yn llawn. Felly, unwaith eto, chwilio ydw i, yn fan hyn, am ymrwymiad, nid i wneud ymchwil llawnach, ond y math o ymchwil llawnach y dylem ni allu disgwyl ei gael gan y Llywodraeth wrth lunio'r rheoliadau.

Ynghlwm â hynny, wedyn, mae'r ail set o welliannau—16 a 21—sydd wedi'u cynllunio'n benodol i sicrhau bod y sector tafarndai, ymhlith eraill, yn cael eu hymgynghori â nhw ynglŷn â'r rheoliadau. Un o'r pethau sydd wedi fy ngogwyddo i tuag at gefnogi'r Bil yma ydy'r potensial i'r hyn sydd o'n blaenau ni gynnig budd i'r sector tafarndai—sector, rydw i'n meddwl, sydd â chyfraniad mawr i'w wneud yn gymdeithasol i ni yng Nghymru. Mae tafarndai wedi wynebu cystadleuaeth annheg, rydw i'n credu, yn y gorffennol, gan archfarchnadoedd ac eraill sy'n gwerthu alcohol fel loss leaders ac ati, felly rydw i'n meddwl y gallai'r Bil yma gael ei weld fel rhywbeth sy'n hafalu'r cae chwarae rhywfaint, o ran hynny.

Rydw i'n credu bod yna sefyllfa o gwmpas tafarn lle mae yfed alcohol yn gallu digwydd mewn amgylchedd mwy diogel, ac mae goryfed yn fwy tebygol o allu cael ei reoli mewn amgylchedd tŷ tafarn, lle y gall tafarndai sydd yn gweithredu yn dda atal gwerthu alcohol i bobl sydd eisoes wedi goryfed; lle mae yna bobl cymorth cyntaf i fod wedi cael eu hyfforddi ac ati; lle mae heddlu a llywodraeth leol yn gallu cymryd trwyddedau oddi ar dafarndai lle mae trafferthion yn digwydd oherwydd goryfed.

Felly, rydw i wedi cyflwyno'r gwelliannau yma er mwyn sicrhau bod yna fewnbwn go iawn gan y sector yna. Fel y byddaf i'n gwneud y pwynt droeon—nid yn unig heddiw, ond yn ystod y cymal nesaf o drafodaethau ar y Bil yma—rydw i'n benderfynol ein bod ni'n gwneud popeth posib i ddod â'r cyhoedd efo ni ar y daith yma. Ac rydw i'n ystyried bod hwn yn un o'r gwelliannau hynny sydd yn egluro peth o'r meddwl tu ôl i'r gwelliant yma.

Thank you very much, Chair. There are two sets of amendments within this group. I will speak to both sets in turn. Firstly, amendment 15, which notes that Welsh Government should commission and publish independent research and a modelling assessment of the price that is being considered before making regulations. This, of course, builds on the discussion we've been having up to this point this morning.

These are amendments that I have put forward in order to ensure that the price is correct, and differently to Jenny Rathbone, who spoke earlier, I don't see why we shouldn't put the minimum price a little lower than 50p. But again, I'm making the point that, of course, I wouldn't know that without the modelling having been done in full. So, once again, I'm looking here for a commitment, not to undertake fuller research, but to the type of fuller research we should be looking to the Government to undertake in drawing up these regulations.

In relation to that, then, we have 16 and 21 in the second set of amendments, which have been designed specifically to make sure that the public houses sector, amongst others, are also consulted with in relation to these regulations. One of the things that make me veer towards supporting this particular Bill is the potential for what we have before us to be beneficial to the public houses sector. I think it's a sector that has a big contribution to make on a social level in Wales. Pubs have faced unfair competition, I believe, in the past, from supermarkets and others who sell alcohol as loss leaders, for example, so I think this Bill could be seen as something that balances the equation a little.

I do believe that there's a situation that exists around a pub where drinking alcohol can happen in a safer environment, and drinking to excess is more likely to be able to be controlled within a pub environment, where pubs that operate well can, of course, refuse to sell alcohol to people who have been drinking to excess; where people with first aid training will also be on the premises; where the police and local government, of course, are able to take licences away from pubs where problems do crop up because of excessive drinking.

So, I have put forward these amendments in order to ensure that there is real input from this particular sector. As I will be making this point many times—not just today, of course, but during the next stage of discussions on this Bill—I am determined that we do everything we can to bring the public with us on this journey. And I consider that this is one of those amendments that explains some of the thinking behind the amendment.

Diolch, yn fawr, Rhun. Fe wnaf i alw ar Suzy Davies nesaf.

Thank you very much, Rhun. I'll call on Suzy Davies next.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. For the legislature to have any confidence in changes to this legislation introduced via regulation, it should be no surprise that we'll have some views on what we think needs to be done before that change is introduced. And because we cannot amend regulations, we are not infrequently presented with a choice between rejecting a regulation or accepting it on the reassurances of Government that it's done everything that it believes needed attention before the regulation was drafted. So, I think the amendments in this group give you, Cabinet Secretary, some clarity on what it will take to reassure us and what we think it will take to reassure the public to a position where we are steered away, if you like, from the option of rejecting future regulations. So, I think it would reassure us of your commitment to consult with the bodies mentioned in amendments 4 and 6 by supporting one, or possibly both, of those amendments. Because Welsh Government may be content that the affirmative procedure was appropriate—that's a quote from your recent letter—well, I have to say that those of us who scrutinise and legislate are not content with that procedure. Members of all parties, when they were free of their party whip, made that clear in recommendation 3 of the Stage 1 report, and I'm hoping that you're not one of those Cabinet Ministers who sees no difficulty in determining the rules by which he might be scrutinised in future, so let's see.

We'll be supporting amendment 15, as it would have worked as drafted, even if our amendment 1 had passed, and I support what Rhun has just said. Our amendment 4, of course, is very similar to Plaid's amendment 16. In fact, they're identical in some particulars, and I imagine there'd be no real disagreement between us on the slightly different list of consultees. However, I think there is a material and significant reason why I would ask you to support amendment 4 over amendment 16, and that is the insistence that any regulation comes before the relevant policy committee of this place. That removes the possibility of Government claiming time restraint to send draft regulations straight to Plenary or leaving time only for CLAC to look at them. Amendment 13 is a straightforward drafting change consequential on amendment 4, but I hope you will see that material difference between amendment 16 and amendment 4, Members. Thank you.

10:00

Diolch yn fawr, Suzy. Aelodau eraill? Mae Julie eisiau siarad. 

Thank you very much, Suzy. Other Members? Julie wants to speak.

Yes, just very briefly on the issue of research. I mean, certainly, we have had presented to us the independent research from Sheffield university, and I think there's been two commissions there. So, I don't really understand the call for more independent research.

Diolch yn fawr, Julie. A gaf i gydnabod bod Dawn Bowden wedi cyrraedd y cyfarfod? Felly, croeso, Dawn, a diolch i Jenny Rathbone am ei chyfraniad yn gynharach. Croeso, Dawn, neu 'Gwawr', fel rydw i nawr yn ei galw hi nawr yn Gymraeg. Rydw i'n galw ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i siarad. 

Thank you, Julie. May I acknowledge the fact that Dawn has arrived? Welcome, Dawn, and also thank you to Jenny Rathbone for her previous contribution. Welcome, Dawn, or 'Gwawr', which is the Welsh word for Dawn and which is what I now call her in Welsh. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak. 

Thank you, Chair. I thank the Members for the debate. I'll try and address the amendments in turn. I'll try and deal with amendment 15 initially, and I'll start from the point that Julie Morgan has made. We've had from the University of Sheffield  a range of reports looking at modelling evidence, and I think that we are in a position where the modelling evidence is as good as it's going to get before the Assembly is asked to pass this Bill, but also we've got to introduce a regime after the passage of this Bill. I don't think there's great utility or value in having a further exercise undertaken before regulations are introduced. There will be time and money taken in doing so. Essentially, after the law is passed, we'll have to go straight into a commissioning round of that research, and I don't think we'd add to our value. We'd take up resource in doing it, but I don't think we'd really add to the value in terms of the public or, indeed, scrutineers or ministerial decision makers.

As I say, when we look at the strong evidence about whether price matters, well, that's part of the reason why we're here: because there's lots of evidence that price matters on a range of goods. That's been reiterated both by Sheffield and the work they've done about alcohol, but also more generally, in the evidence from Switzerland, where they reduced significantly the price of alcohol and you saw consumption go up significantly. So, price does matter.

To make sure the evidence is effective, the Government is committed to reviewing the level of minimum unit price. That's why the regulatory method is the right approach to do so rather than on the face of the Bill. That review will consider the points we made earlier about compliance, alcohol consumption, especially amongst hazardous and harmful drinkers, prices and the data on the harms caused by alcohol. So, all those things will be taken into account in reviewing how we wish to make regulations in this area, and any decision will take into consideration the analysis already provided by the University of Sheffield. We'll also consider the emerging evidence from Scotland. I think it's worth also pointing out to committee members that the way that amendment 15 is drafted—this would not be an exercise about the initial introduction of a minimum unit price regime. This would commit us to having this modelling research for every subsequent change to the minimum unit price. So, we'd be committed to a lengthy process—so, even before even get to the superaffirmative request—and an expensive process to do so. And I certainly hope that if we can deliver on the policy intention, and if we have a regime that this Assembly is prepared to support, with the backstops available and a full evaluation after five years of the regime coming in, the Assembly having to positively endorse a future minimum unit price regime, we may well find that ourselves in future years with an alcohol pricing regime, with a minimum unit price, that is broadly accepted. And we may not want to go through the process that is prescribed in the suggested amendments. That would be a matter for a future Assembly, but we would tie ourselves into a lengthy and expensive process to do so. I accept at the outset, thought, that there is a very good reason to take time to consult widely, which is what we have committed to do. It's also worth bearing in mind, of course, that that's what happened on a range of other pieces of legislation.

I'll just deal with the side issue raised first, actually, about pubs. The pub industry is broadly supportive of the legislation, and we understand why. But for all that this may help the pub industry, that is not the purpose of the legislation. I'll reiterate again—this is public health legislation aimed at reducing the harm caused by alcohol.

The process of the making of the regulations—. We have already worked with a range of stakeholders set out in both the amendments requesting a superaffirmative procedure, and we'll continue to do so. I've made that commitment before and I'm happy to make that again. The challenge, though, is: what is an appropriate way to do this? And the Assembly recently, in passing the land transaction tax and landfill disposals tax, has done so on the basis of an affirmative procedure, and, yet, the Assembly has decided on the one hand that setting taxation rates should and could be done on an affirmative basis, following a significant period of consultation for introducing a new regime for taxation, but after that it will be an affirmative process. In this instance, we'd be committed forever to having a superaffirmative process to change the prices or to look at different regulations. I think that's the wrong balance to strike. It is of course appropriate that we take time in an initial consultation to do so, but, thereafter, the length of the process should not be underestimated. If you add in amendment 15 with the modelling request, that would have to come first, then to have regulations, and then with the superaffirmative process it would take at least six months. The 12-week consultation—at least, in reality, a month to analyse and respond to that consultation, and then a 60-day standstill. We'd be committed to modelling data, research, and then, at least, six months before being able to change the price. And I just think that that is the wrong balance to strike.

I should also remind Members that, of course, this Assembly already does have procedures for affirmative regulations to have scrutiny before committees, and as we're going through the initial up to the first five-year period, I expect this committee to take a keen interest in everything that is done. And I fully expect this committee to have a view on, not just the process to get to regulations of the setting of a minimum unit price, but what that should be, on the evidence that comes out at that time. So, I don't think there will be any lack of scrutiny about a wholly novel area of policy.

It's also worth pointing out that, previously, when this Assembly—and I've been a backbench Member, sat on a committee—asked the Government to change scrutiny levels, in particular for the social services and well-being Bill, as it was then was, that was in large part a framework Bill, where the broad policy direction was set, but the detail of that had not been. This, however, is a piece of legislation with a very clear and specific policy intent, the action that we wish to take, and it's gone through a range of consultation already. There was a draft Bill at the end of the last Assembly that I took forward as the then Deputy Minister. We've gone through another period of consultation here and we've had the research from Sheffield. This is not an area where there's been an avoidance of scrutiny. So, I continue to say that we believe that the commitments that we've given, which we restate to day, about consultation, about listening to people about setting an initial level, the backstop of having an evaluation at the end of a five-year period, the sunset clauses that are introduced—they're all entirely appropriate and should give people the comfort that I understand that they will want about how a regime will be introduced and set in the future. But we do believe that the affirmative process is an appropriate way to deliver this now and in the future, and I'd ask Members to reject the amendments in this group.

10:05

Diolch yn fawr, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. A gaf i alw ar Rhun ap Iorwerth, felly, i ymateb i'r ddadl?

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. May I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth, therefore, to reply to the debate?

Diolch yn fawr iawn am y sylwadau gan bawb ar y mater a chan yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet. Cwpwl o sylwadau gennyf i—mi glywsom ni'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet yn dweud yn y fan yna, 'This is as good as it gets', o ran y dystiolaeth sydd gennym ni. Nid ydy hynny yn fy modloni i, oherwydd mae yna bob mathau o ffyrdd gwahanol lle gallem ni fod yn chwilio am dystiolaeth ychwanegol, gan gynnwys rhywbeth mae'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet ei hun wedi cyfeirio ato fo, wrth gwrs, sef dilyn yn ofalus beth sydd wedi digwydd neu beth fydd yn digwydd yn yr Alban, o ganlyniad i gyflwyno'r newid hwn yno. 

Rydw i'n fodlon peidio gwthio hwn i bleidlais, achos, o bosib, nid comisiynu ymchwil annibynnol ychwanegol sydd ei eisiau—mi wnaf dderbyn hynny. Ond mae eisiau rhyw fodd y gallwn ni chwilio eto am ffyrdd o wneud hynny yng nghymal nesaf y drafodaeth ar y Bil yma, i sicrhau bod pob carreg yn cael ei throi drosodd, fel petai, gan y Llywodraeth yma wrth gael y dystiolaeth a'r modelu cywir. Felly, ie, o bosibl, nid comisiynu ymchwiliad annibynnol ydy o, achos i Sheffield y byddech chi'n troi, o bosib, am yr ymchwiliad hwnnw. Felly, rydw i'n hapus i beidio â gwthio hynny i bleidlais. 

O ran gwelliant 16, mi glywsom ni'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet yn dweud bod yna bwrpas clir a phenodol i'r ddeddfwriaeth yma. Oes, rydw i'n cydfynd, ond mae gan bob deddfwriaeth oblygiadau uniongyrchol ac anuniongyrchol iddyn nhw, ac mae'r goblygiadau anuniongyrchol hynny yn gallu bod yn rhai negyddol ac yn rhai cadarnhaol. Rydw i wir yn credu bod yna sgileffaith gadarnhaol i'r darn yma o ddeddfwriaeth o ran hafalu'r tir efo tafarndai. Ac nid ydw i'n meddwl y dylem ni fod yn swil o nodi hynny, os gallwn ni, wrth inni drafod y Bil yma. Felly, mi fyddaf i'n gofyn am bleidlais ar hynny, oherwydd dyma le y byddwn ni, drwy'r Bil, yn enwi yn benodol y sector pwysig yma yng Nghymru fel ymgynghorai ffurfiol ar gyfer y ddeddfwriaeth sydd o'n blaenau ni. 

Thank you very much for those comments from everyone and for the response from the Cabinet Secretary. A couple of comments from me—we heard the Cabinet Secretary saying there, 'This is as good as it gets', in relation to the evidence that we have. That doesn't give me much assurance, because there are many different ways where we could be looking for additional evidence, including something the Cabinet Secretary has referred to, of course, namely following carefully what has happened or what will be happening in Scotland, as a result of introducing this change there. 

I am prepared not to push this to a vote, because, possibly, commissioning additional independent research may not be what is needed—I accept that. But we do need some way to enable us to look again at ways of doing that in the next stage of the debate on this Bill, to ensure that all stones are overturned, as it where, by this Government in collecting the evidence and having the correct modelling. So, yes, perhaps commissioning an independent research projects is not the correct thing to do, because you might well turn to Sheffield for that particular investigation. So, I am happy not to push that to a vote. 

In relation to amendment 16, we heard the Cabinet Secretary say that there is a clear and specific purpose to this legislation. Yes, there is, I agree, but all legislation has direct implications and indirect implications, and those indirect implications can be negative ones and they can be positive. I do believe that there is a positive side effect to this particular piece of legislation in relation to having a more level playing field with the public houses. And I don't think we should be holding back from noting that, if we can, as we discuss this Bill. So, I will be asking for a vote on that, because this is where we will, through this Bill, be naming this particularly important sector in Wales as a formal consultee for the legislation that is before us. 

10:10

Diolch yn fawr, Rhun. Gan droi rŵan at yr amser i bleidleisio ar y gwelliannau yng ngrŵp 2, rydw i'n cymryd o beth rwyt ti wedi ei ddweud ynglŷn â gwelliant 15 dy fod yn tynnu hwnnw yn ôl. 

Thank you very much, Rhun. Turning to the time to vote on the amendments in group 2, I take it from what you've said with regard to amendment 15 that you are withdrawing that amendment. 

Fe wnaf i dynnu hwnnw yn ôl ar sail y geiriad ac ati.  

Yes, I'm withdrawing that on the basis of the wording and so forth. 

Dyna ni. A oes yna unrhyw wrthwynebiad gan unrhyw Aelod i dynnu gwelliant 15 yn ôl? Na, nid oes gwrthwynhebiad. Felly, mae gwelliant 15 yn cael ei dynnu yn ôl. 

There we are. Is there any opposition from any Member to the withdrawal of amendment 15? No, there is no opposition. Therefore, amendment 15 is withdrawn. 

Tynnwyd gwelliant 15 yn ôl gyda chaniatâd y pwyllgor.

Amendment 15 withdrawn by leave of the committee.

Wrth symud ymlaen at y gwelliant nesaf yn y grŵp yma, gallaf ddweud, os gwrthodir gwelliant 4, bydd gwelliant 13 hefyd yn methu. Felly, a allaf ofyn i Suzy Davies, a ydych yn dymuno cynnig gwelliant 4?  

We move on now to the next amendment in this group, and I can say that if amendment 4 is not agreed, then amendment 13 will also fall. So, may I ask Suzy Davies if she wishes to move amendment 4? 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 4 (Angela Burns).

Amendment 4 (Angela Burns) moved.

Ydych, rydych chi'n fodlon cynnig gwelliant 4. Y cwestiwn ydy: a oes yna unrhyw wrthwynebiad i welliant 4? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Reit, mae yna fwy nag un gwrthwynebiad, felly, i welliant 4. Felly, rydym yn symud i bleidlais, ac mi wnaiff y Cadeirydd gofio pleidleisio y tro yma hefyd, sydd yn rhywbeth newydd. [Chwerthin.] Felly, y cwestiwn ydy: a ydych chi'n derbyn gwelliant 4? Pawb sydd o blaid i ddangos eu dwylo. Un o blaid. Y rheini sydd yn erbyn i ddangos drwy godi eu dwylo. Chwech yn erbyn. Y sawl sydd yn ymatal? Un. Felly, mae gwelliant 4 wedi ei wrthod. A gan fod gwelliant 4 wedi ei wrthod, mae gwelliant 13 hefyd yn methu. 

Yes, you do wish to move amendment 4. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Is there any objection? [Objection.] Right, there is more than one objection, therefore, to amendment 4. So, we'll move to a vote, and the Chair will remember to vote this time as well, which will be a novelty. [Laughter.] So, the question is whether you approve amendment 4. All those in favour, please raise your hands. One in favour. Those against, please raise your hands. Six against. And those abstaining? One. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed. And as amendment 4 was not agreed, amendment 13 also falls. 

Gwelliant 4: O blaid: 1, Yn erbyn: 6, Ymatal: 1

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 4: For: 1, Against: 6, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Methodd gwelliant 13.

Amendment 13 fell.

Gan symud ymlaen, os gwrthodir gwelliant 16, bydd gwelliant 21 hefyd yn methu. Felly, i'r perwyl yma, ynglŷn â gwelliant 16—Rhun, a ydych chi'n dymuno cynnig gwelliant 16?   

Moving on now, if amendment 16 is not agreed, amendment 21 will also fall. So, with regard to amendment 16—Rhun, do you wish to move amendment 16? 

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 16 (Rhun ap Iorwerth). 

Amendment 16 (Rhun ap iorwerth) moved.

Mae Rhun yn cynnig gwelliant 16. Y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 16: A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Mae yna wrthwynebiad, felly symudwn ni i bleidlais. Y rhai sydd o blaid derbyn gwelliant 16, a allwch chi ddangos? Dau. Y sawl sydd yn erbyn gwelliant 16, pump. A'r sawl sy'n ymatal, un. Felly gwrthodwyd gwelliant 16.

Rhun moves amendment 16. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, therefore we will move to a vote by show of hands. Those in favour of amendment 16, please raise your hands. Two. Those against amendment 16, five. And those abstaining, one. Therefore, amendment 16 is not agreed.

10:15

Gwelliant 16: O blaid: 2, Yn erbyn: 5, Ymatal: 1

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 16: For: 2, Against: 5, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Gan fod gwelliant 16 wedi ei wrthod, mae gwelliant 21 yn methu hefyd.

As amendment 16 was not agreed, amendment 21 falls as well.

Methodd gwelliant 21.

Amendment 21 fell.

A gan fod gwelliant 1, o'r blaen, wedi ei wrthod, mae gwelliannau 5, 6 a 7 hefyd yn methu.

And as amendment 1 was not agreed previously, amendments 5, 6 and 7 also fall.

Grŵp 3: Gwerthiannau alcohol—cyfraniad elusennol (Gwelliannau 17, 20)
Group 3: Alcohol sales—charitable contribution (Amendments 17, 20)

Mae hynny'n golygu ein bod ni'n mynd ymlaen i grŵp 3 o'r gwelliannau rŵan, ac mae'r gwelliannau yn grŵp 3 yn ymwneud â chyfraniad elusennol o werthiannau alcohol. Gwelliannau 17 a 20 sydd yma yn y grŵp yma, grŵp 3. Y prif welliant yn y grŵp ydy gwelliant 17 yn enw Rhun ap Iorwerth, ac felly galwaf ar Rhun ap Iorwerth i gynnig gwelliant 17 ac i siarad am ei welliannau yn y grŵp yma—Rhun.

This means that we move on now to group 3 of the amendments, and the amendments in group 3 are related to charitable contribution from alcohol sales. These are amendments 17 and 20 in this group, group 3. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 17 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, therefore, I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 17 and to speak to the amendments in this group—Rhun.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 17 (Rhun ap Iorwerth).

Amendment 17 (Rhun ap Iorwerth) moved.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. Mae hwn yn grŵp pwysig i fi. Gwelliannau sydd yn fan hyn i geisio defnyddio peth o'r arian ychwanegol a fydd yn dod i goffrau gwerthwyr alcohol at ddiben taclo camddefnydd alcohol. Wrth i brisiau godi dan y ddeddf hon, mi fyddai yna elw ychwanegol yn gallu cael ei wneud, ac rydw i'n meddwl am archfarchnadoedd yn benodol. Felly, mae'r gwelliannau yma yn cynnig ffordd ymlaen i atal yr elwa yna gan yr archfarchnadoedd. 

Mae hwn yn gwestiwn gwleidyddol dyrys a phwysig i'w drafod. Rydw i'n gwybod yn yr Alban, er enghraifft, methiant i ddod i gytundeb ar y pwynt yma oedd y rheswm pam y gwnaeth Llafur bleidleisio yn erbyn y ddeddfwriaeth, oherwydd eu bod nhw am weld yr union fath o beth yr ydw i'n gofyn amdano fo yn y gwelliannau yma.

Mi fyddwn i yn dweud yn fan hyn hefyd, er y cofnod, mai'r hyn y byddwn i'n ei ffafrio fel model ar gyfer defnyddio cymhelliant ariannol i newid arferion pobl a newid perthynas pobl efo alcohol fyddai defnyddio trethiant ar alcohol. Yn y sefyllfa honno, wrth gwrs, mi fyddai unrhyw newid yn golygu arian yn dod i goffrau'r wlad er mwyn gallu cael ei ddefnyddio ym mha bynnag ffordd y byddai'r Llywodraeth neu'r Cynulliad yn ei ddymuno. Nid oes gennym ni ddim o'r grym trethiannol hwnnw, a dyna pam, mewn difrif, yr ydym ni'n gorfod ystyried gosod lleiafswm pris. Felly, dyna'r cefndir.

Rydw i'n derbyn bod hwn yn faes anodd. Wrth lunio gwelliant, buom ni'n ystyried sut i dargedu'r rhai rydym ni'n dymuno eu targedu. Nid ydw i eisiau cosbi na gwneud bywyd yn anodd i siopau bychain, er enghraifft, achos mi fyddai yna elfen weinyddol yn ymwneud ag adnabod a chasglu’r arian ychwanegol sy'n dod i goffrau'r siopau, ond yn sicr mi fyddwn i yn dymuno gweld ffordd o dargedu'r archfarchnadoedd a'r mân-werthwyr mawr i allu gwneud cyfraniad elusennol i gael ei ddefnyddio at ddiben taclo gorddefnydd alcohol yn ein cymunedau ni.

Rydw i'n edrych ymlaen at glywed beth mae'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet yn ei ddweud ar y mater hwn. Rydw i'n deall bod yna gydymdeimlad at yr hyn yr ydw i'n ceisio ei wneud. Fel rydw i'n dweud, rydw i'n cydnabod yr anawsterau, ond rywsut mae'n rhaid inni fwrw'r maen i'r wal ar hyn. Mi lwyddwyd i ffeindio ffordd ymlaen efo'r gost 5c ar fagiau plastig. Mae hwn yn faes tebyg mewn sawl ffordd er bod y gweithredu yn wahanol. Felly, gwelliannau pwysig—a rywsut mae'n rhaid inni ffeindio ateb i hyn.

Thank you very much, Chair. This is an important group for me. They are amendments in order to try and use some of the additional funding that will come into the coffers of the alcohol sellers in order to look at tackling alcohol misuse. As prices rise under this legislation, there would be additional profit made, and I'm thinking specifically about supermarkets. So, these amendments suggest a way forward in order to try and stop that profit being made by the supermarkets.

Now, this is a political question, it's a complicated one and it's important. I know in Scotland, for example, they failed to come to an agreement on this particular point and that is why Labour voted against the legislation, because they wanted to see this very thing that I'm asking for in the amendments now.

I should say here, for the record, that what I would favour as a model for using financial incentives to change people's habits and relationship with alcohol would be to use taxation on alcohol. Of course, in that situation, any change would mean that money would come into the state's coffers in order to be used in whichever way the Government or the Assembly would require. We don't have the taxation powers there to do that, so that is why we have to consider setting a minimum price. So, that's the background.

I do accept that this is a difficult area. In drawing up an amendment, we considered how to target those we would like to target in this area. I don't want to make life difficult for small shops or to penalise them, because there would be an administrative element in relation to identifying and collecting this additional money, but I would like to see a way of targeting supermarkets and those large retailers so that they could make a charitable contribution to be used to tackle the overconsumption of alcohol in our communities.

I look forward to hearing what the Cabinet Secretary has to say on this issue. I understand that there is sympathy towards what I'm trying to do. As I say, I do acknowledge the difficulties, but somehow we do have to get a result on this. We did manage to find a way forward with the 5p charge on plastic carrier bags. This is a similar area in many ways, although the mode of operation might be different. So, these are important amendments, and, somehow, we do have to find an answer.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhun. Suzy, a wyt ti eisiau dod i mewn yn fan hyn? Wedyn cawn ni Lynne a Julie.

Thank you very much, Rhun. Suzy, do you want to come in here? Then we'll turn to Lynne and Julie.

Rhywbeth clou, diolch, Cadeirydd.

Just very quickly, thank you, Chair.

I'm in a bit of difficulty with this particular amendment, Rhun. I'm less worried about the issue of Assembly competence—obviously, you mentioned the plastic bag levy, and we've got a reserved-powers model now, which irons a few things out. And I can actually see the attraction of this. It's like a variation on the polluter-pays theme, in a way, but it just strikes me that, in the format that it is in the amendment at the moment, it's rather an unwieldy mechanism for laying hands on what could be a relatively small pot of money. Because, as you say, the pub end of the trade, we're talking of over 50p a unit price anyway, and, at the cheaper end of the market, well, you're not necessarily going to get more profit if the sales drop, which, of course, is part of the purpose of this legislation in the first place.

So, I hear that you're asking the Cabinet Secretary to think hard about how this could be dealt with perhaps differently and maybe, when we get to, I don't know, two years or possibly five years— whichever one of us wins out on this—you should be in a position to provide some answers on the policy achievement that Rhun's trying to achieve in this amendment.

10:20

Diolch yn fawr, Suzy. Lynne Neagle, nesaf.

Thank you, Suzy. Lynne Neagle is next.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I have a great deal of sympathy for this amendment, as it's attempting to reach the point that the committee was very keen on, whereby some of the money raised from this minimum unit price is actually used to benefit people who are having trouble with alcohol, and we know that those services are under pressure. I do, however, understand the difficulties that the Welsh Government has with this and won't be supporting the amendment on the basis that I wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardise this on the grounds of competence. But I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will be able to say some more about the commitment that he's made previously to look at voluntary action in this area and give the committee some firm assurances that this is work that will be taken forward in a vigorous way. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Lynne. Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Lynne. Julie Morgan.

Yes. I've got a great deal of sympathy with this, and I think, in our discussions in the committee, there was a great deal of sympathy. And we did take evidence from the services that provide services for people who are suffering from alcohol-related problems, many of them in the voluntary sector. And I think, as has been said here this morning, it's really important that we do get more help to that sector and this is a possible way of doing it. So, I would like to ask the Cabinet Secretary to give a commitment that he will look at this in the future, because, obviously, the important thing now is to get this legislation through, but I think there is a strong feeling from the committee that this is a way ahead in order to help those services that need extra, that need money.

Diolch, Julie. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Julie. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, along the same lines, really—very sympathetic with the intentions of this amendment, but I am concerned that some of the big retailers that are the ones likely to be the main beneficiaries of this weren't even prepared to come and give evidence to us in committee and, in fact, were quite hostile—some of them were quite hostile—to the proposals.

So, I'd be interested in hearing your views about, if we don't pass this amendment, what, in real terms, we can do, because of the difficulties that Scotland have encountered, similarly. Because I don't want this just to wither on the vine, so to speak, for the reasons that Julie and Lynne have already mentioned. If we don't have a way of accessing additional funding to support and enhance some of the alcohol support services, then that would be a source of concern for me.

Diolch yn fawr, Dawn. A allaf i alw ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i siarad?

Thank you very much, Dawn. May I now call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak?

Yes. Thank you for the comments. I'm happy to return to this area again and I recognise and have real sympathy for the mover of the amendments and the views expressed in this committee and, indeed, in the Finance Committee as well, where both committees asked the Government to explore voluntary contributions and, in this, we're being asked here to explore a compulsory contribution.

It still remains the Government's view—. There are two reasons, broadly, to ask the committee not to support the amendment moved. The first is a straightforward issue about competence, and, as I say, this is public health legislation; it's not about raising revenue. And the challenge about introducing something that looks like it's revenue raising is whether we're getting into fiscal powers and a guaranteed area of dispute that would take this Bill into the Supreme Court. The policy rationale and the evidence base for this legislation was not about a way to try and raise revenue as well. So, I think the compulsory levy proposal is problematic and means that we would then be stopped from introducing a regime as fast as we want to. I think that is difficult and I would ask people to take that seriously. On its own, I think that's a good enough reason not to support the amendment.

But, having said that, I'm more than happy to place again on record the commitment of the Government to continue to explore a voluntary contribution. And some of this—. This isn't straightforward because, of course, part of the rationale for introducing this legislation is that some retailers—the larger ones in particular—use alcohol as a loss leader. So, they're not looking to make a profit out of the alcohol; they're looking to make a profit out of everything else they sell with it, and to bring people in to buy other goods from their enterprises. So, there's a challenge about understanding the level of profit that would accrue, and that makes a difference as to then understanding what would be the additional level of profit that could potentially go to a business. So, it wouldn't be quite as simple to then understand how you would then take a proportion of additional money that might come in. I note the device that was used in the amendment is simply to say, 'Let's have a proportion of the minimum unit price'. So, I understand the simplicity of that, because it avoids having to look behind a business to try to understand what the level of profit is. But I do think that that looks rather like a straightforward tax, and that is problematic.

Aside from the competence issue, which is real and significant, I think the committee should have in mind the wording of the amendment itself. The challenge in the way that the wording is set is it's very broad. So, it gives significant powers to Ministers on an affirmative basis to create an independent body, to receive compulsory contributions, and for Ministers to set out who and what that body should be. There's no guarantee that that would be considered a charitable contribution or an organisation. Indeed, there's nothing about how that body should operate in practice. That would all be left to Ministers to introduce. The amendment also talks about alcohol retailers paying a proportion of the price of the unit minimum, and I recognise the sympathy that people have largely about the larger alcohol retailers who make significant profits and are a part of the challenge that we're looking at and actually some of the biggest problems when it comes to really cheap alcohol being introduced. But the wording in the amendment talks about 'alcohol retailers'. The thing about alcohol retailers and premises captured by this Bill on minimum unit pricing—we're talking about everyone. So, pubs, which I know Rhun wants to support, will be caught by this amendment, every local shop and, indeed, restaurants as well. So, those alcohol retailers would all be caught by this. The challenge then is that we'd be asking them to all pay a portion of the minimum unit price to this independent body. We'd also be saying to all of those, 'You need to keep records about alcohol sales', and that isn't clear about what that would be. And you actually then have to define a process to understand what records you want kept, how, where and why, and how you look at them. Also, we talk about having enforcements, and so would there be an offence to enforce against? And that would all be left to regulation. That's pretty unusual as well.

So, there are a number of quite difficult challenges about the way in which the amendment is drafted that, even if people are not with me on the point about competence, I think are real and significant and we should not take them forward in the way that the amendment is, in itself, drafted. But, as I say, I'm really happy to re-state that officials have spoken with, during the passage of this Bill, the Welsh Retail Consortium, and made clear our desire to have a continuing conversation about this. I expect this committee to maintain its interest and, assuming the Assembly agrees, if minimum unit pricing is introduced, to then have more real-world evidence about its impact, both on public health but also on business profits, and to continue a conversation about wanting to have something that looks like a voluntary contribution. That must be a conversation we have, rather than looking potentially to risk the whole Bill and the real public health benefit that we're convinced it will provide to the population of Wales.

10:25

Diolch yn fawr, Ysgrifennydd Cabinet.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Now, I'm in a benevolent mood. Suzy, you had a point of clarification, did you?

It's been answered. Right. There we are.

Diolch yn fawr, felly. Galwaf, felly, ar Rhun ap Iorwerth i ymateb i'r ddadl.

Thank you very much. I therefore call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd, a diolch i bawb am eu sylwadau ac am nodi eich cefnogaeth i'r hyn rydw i'n treio ei gyflawni yn fan hyn, os nad yr union ffordd yr ydym ni'n mynd o'i chwmpas hi. Rydym ni'n ddigon cynnar yn nhaith y Bil yma i allu edrych eto ar hynny. Nid ydw i'n anghytuno â sylwadau sydd wedi cael eu gwneud mewn difrif, pa un ai gan aelodau'r pwyllgor neu gan Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. Mi wnaf i'r pwynt eto bod yr anhawster yr ydym yn ei wynebu yn fan hyn yn deillio yn sylweddol oherwydd diffyg pwerau y lle hwn. Yn amlwg, mi fyddwch yn disgwyl imi bwysleisio hynny a'r ffaith y gallem ni fod yn gwneud pethau gwahanol pe bai'r amgylchiadau yn wahanol o ran datganoli. Ond rydw i yn nodi'r gefnogaeth i'r egwyddor, am gadw'r gefnogaeth i'r egwyddor yn fyw, ac felly yn dymuno i'r drafodaeth barhau, ac, yn hynny o beth, rydw i’n barod i dynnu’r cynnig yma yn ei ôl, gan edrych ymlaen at barhau i drafod efo’r Llywodraeth, gobeithio, ynglŷn â sut i wthio’r maen i’r wal ar gynllun, p’un ai’n wirfoddol neu, o bosib, rhywbeth cryfach na hynny.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thanks to everyone for their comments and for noting your support for what I'm trying to achieve here, even if it's not exactly in the way we're trying to look at it. We're at an early enough stage in this Bill to look at this again. I don't disagree with the comments by the Members and the Cabinet Secretary. I will make the point again that the difficulty we are facing here, of course, stems substantially from the lack of powers in this place. Of course, you would expect me to emphasise that and the fact that we could be doing different things if circumstances were different in relation to devolution. However, I note the support for the principle and I'd like to keep that support alive, and therefore I'd like the discussion to continue on this area, and therefore, I am happy to withdraw this amendment, and I look forward to continuing to discuss with the Government, I hope, how we can achieve this, whether through a voluntary scheme or maybe something stronger than that.

10:30

Diolch yn fawr, Rhun. Felly, i gadarnhau, Rhun, rwyt ti'n dymuno tynnu'r gwelliant yma yn ôl. A oes yna unrhyw wrthwynebiad i dynnu gwelliant 17 yn ôl? Dim gwrthwynebiad. Felly, gallaf gadarnhau bod gwelliant 17 wedi'i dynnu yn ôl. Mae hynny'n golygu bod gwelliant 20 hefyd wedi'i dynnu nôl ac yn methu yn y cyd-destun yma.

Thank you very much, Rhun. So, just to confirm, Rhun, you wish to withdraw this amendment. Is there any opposition to the withdrawal of amendment 17? No opposition. So, I can confirm that amendment 17 has been withdrawn, and that means that amendment 20 is also withdrawn and falls in this particular context.

Tynnwyd gwelliant 17 yn ôl gyda chaniatâd y pwyllgor.

Amendment 17 withdrawn by leave of the committee.

Methodd gwelliant 20.

Amendment 20 fell.

Grŵp 4: Canllawiau (Gwelliant 8)
Group 4: Guidance (Amendment 8)

Felly, rydym ni'n gallu symud ymlaen i grŵp 4 yn y gwelliannau yma, ac o dan grŵp 4 rŷm ni'n trin canllawiau. Gwelliant 8 sydd yn y fan hyn. Y prif welliant, a'r unig welliant yn wir, yn y grŵp ydy gwelliant 8, sydd wedi'i gyflwyno yn enw Angela Burns. Felly, galwaf ar Suzy Davies i gynnig gwelliant 8 ac i siarad am welliant 8. Suzy.

So, we can move on now to group 4 of the amendments, which deals with guidance. This is amendment 8. It's the lead and, indeed, only amendment in the group, which has been tabled in the name of Angela Burns. So, I call on Suzy Davies to move amendment 8 and speak to amendment 8. Suzy.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 8 (Angela Burns).

Amendment 8 (Angela Burns) moved.

Diolch. I move amendment 8. As ever, the Welsh Government is quite happy to impose new obligations on our constituents but less keen to assume them for Welsh Ministers. There are penalties for getting this wrong, aren't there? If we could only help our constituents who retail alcohol, and I think we can only help them if they have a list of guidelines, which, as long as they stick to them and act in good faith, will give them an element of protection in any prosecution proceedings.

I think it also helps prosecutors evidence intention to break the law if there are guidelines that the accused has flagrantly ignored. If you want to persuade us that you will be introducing guidance, and I suspect you might be doing that, there are two ways of doing that, I think: either you provide this committee with well-worked-up, tested draft guidance concurrently with the passage of this Bill—as indeed happened with the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill, where that process worked very well—or you commit to introducing it on the face of the Bill. I think I go back to my point that this is primary legislation where unevidenced ministerial assurance isn't actually good enough. We need to have that commitment set on the face of the Bill.

Diolch yn fawr, Suzy. Unrhyw Aelod arall yn dymuno siarad? Rhun.

Thank you very much, Suzy. Do any other Members wish to speak? Rhun.

Dim ond i nodi'n fyr iawn y byddaf i'n cefnogi'r gwelliant yma. Rydw i'n ei roi o yn y categori y gwnes i gyfeirio ato fo yn gynharach—o fod yn fodd i ddod â phobl efo ni ar y daith yma—ac yn sicr, mae rhoi canllawiau i fanwerthwyr yn rhan o hynny a gosod y disgwyliadau a'r hyn sydd angen iddyn nhw ei wneud i gydymffurfio.

Just to note very briefly that I will support this amendment. I put it in the category I referred to earlier, namely as a way of bringing people with us on this journey, and, certainly, giving guidelines to retailers is part of that, and setting the expectations and what they need to do to conform.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhun. Unrhyw Aelod arall eisiau siarad? Nac oes. Felly, gwnaf i alw ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i siarad.

Thank you very much, Rhun. Do any other Members wish to speak? No. Therefore, I call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak.

Thank you. This is an area where the Government restates our commitment to introduce guidance. I'm happy to put on the record yet again that commitment to do so, and work is already in train to do so. There's already a conversation ongoing with both the Welsh Retail Consortium, the Welsh Government Alcohol Industry Network and, indeed, Welsh heads of trading standards.

We're also seeking to learn some of the lessons from Scotland. Again, on that challenge I referred to earlier about the time from the passage of the Bill to then actually having the regime live, and the time that they didn't have because, obviously, they'd had several years in the Supreme Court, we're expecting about a year before we get to introducing a regime. So, hopefully, roughly, next summer, and that will give us time to consult as we look to introduce not just regulations about the minimum unit price, but the detail of the guidance itself.

And I'm happy to consider the point made about whether we can produce something for committee members—an outline of guidance—before we get to Stage 3. But we already have powers to introduce guidance; we don't need an additional power in the Bill. As I say, I'm happy to restate the absolute commitment of the Government to introduce guidance in this area.

We'll also be planning and looking, as well as with retailers and trading standards, to work with a range of other people, in particular the third sector and the substance misuse network on the development of guidance, thinking about the broader impact of a range of different people. So, I'm more than happy to put that on the record again, but the Government view is this is not a necessary amendment. We've given commitments on the record, which I don't think are meaningless, and, as I say, hopefully, in reiterating the good faith in the way in which the Government is acting to provide some outline about parameters for guidance to this committee before we get to Stage 3, I hope, will help give Members the reassurance they're looking for. But I'd ask the committee not to support the amendment.

10:35

Diolch yn fawr i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. Galwaf ar Suzy Davies, felly, i ymateb i'r ddadl. Suzy.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I call on Suzy Davies, therefore, to reply to the debate. Suzy.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. I think that does take us on a step. I still think there is this significant difference between powers and duties, obviously, which you'd expect me to rehearse time and time again, I suspect. I don't actually doubt your commitment to do this, but I repeat the point: there's no obligation on you to do it. In order to protect the position here, I will move this amendment, but I'm very keen to hear whether you'll be able to bring something further forward by Stage 3 that might mean that we won't need to push this again at a later stage. 

Diolch yn fawr, Suzy. Felly, i gadarnhau, a wyt ti'n dymuno gweld pleidlais yn fan hyn? 

Thank you very much, Suzy. To confirm, therefore, do you wish to move to a vote on this?

Felly rydym ni'n symud i bleidlais. Y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 8? A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Mae yna wrthwynebiad, felly awn ni yn syth i bleidleisio. Felly, a all y sawl sydd o blaid gwelliant 8 godi eu dwylo nhw, os gwelwch yn dda? Tri. Y sawl sydd yn erbyn i godi eu dwylo—pedwar. Y sawl sy'n ymatal—un. Felly, gwrthodwyd gwelliant 8.

So we do move to a vote by show of hands. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we move straight to a vote by show of hands. Those in favour of amendment 8, please raise your hands—three. Those against, please raise your hands—four. Those who are abstaining—one. Therefore, amendment 8 is not agreed. 

Gwelliant 8: O blaid: 3, Yn erbyn: 4, Ymatal: 1

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 8: For: 3, Against: 4, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Grŵp 5: Dyletswydd i hyrwyddo ymwybyddiaeth o’r Ddeddf (Gwelliant 18)
Group 5: Duty to promote awareness of the Act (Amendment 18)

Mae hynny'n mynd â ni ymlaen i grŵp 5 o welliannau. Grŵp 5 ydy 'Dyletswydd i hyrwyddo ymwybyddiaeth o'r Ddeddf'. Y prif welliant, a'r unig welliant, yn y grŵp yma, ydy gwelliant 18 yn enw Rhun ap Iorwerth. Felly, galwaf ar Rhun ap Iorwerth i gynnig gwelliant 18 ac i siarad am welliant 18. Rhun. 

That brings us to group 5 of the amendments. Group 5 relates to a duty to promote awareness of the Act. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 18 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. So, I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to speak to amendment 18.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 18 (Rhun ap Iorwerth).

Amendment 18 (Rhun ap Iorwerth) moved.

Diolch yn fawr. Unwaith eto, rydw i'n meddwl bod yna welliant yn fan hyn sy'n adlewyrchu fy nghefndir yn y maes cyfathrebu. Ein gwelliant ni ydy hwn i sicrhau bod y Llywodraeth yn codi ymwybyddiaeth o'r Ddeddf hon ac yn darparu gwybodaeth hefyd sy'n gallu helpu yfwyr cymedrol i fod hyd yn oed yn fwr cymedrol, gobeithio, achos mae hynny'n nod o'r Ddeddf yma. 

Mae yna oblygiadau ymylol posibl i'r Ddeddf yma ar gyfer y bobl sydd ddim yn goryfed ac a allai wrthwynebu'r ddeddfwriaeth oherwydd eu bod nhw'n teimlo bod hwn yn ymosod arnyn nhw'n annheg. Beth mae'r gwelliant yn ei wneud ydy gofyn i'r Llywodraeth ddarparu gwybodaeth ynglŷn â sut y gall yfwyr leihau faint o alcohol y maen nhw'n ei yfed a'r newidiadau y gallen nhw eu gwneud yn eu bywydau nhw—er enghraifft newid i ddiodydd sydd â llai o alcohol ynddyn nhw. Drwy wneud hynny, mi fydden nhw'n gallu osgoi talu mwy am eu diod. Cofiwch mae defnyddio cymhelliad ariannol i newid arferion pobl ydy pwrpas Bil Iechyd y Cyhoedd yma. Mi fyddai'n sicrhau bod cyfathrebu ynglŷn â'r Ddeddf yn cael ei ysgrifennu yn y Ddeddf ei hun, fel cafodd ei wneud efo'r ddeddfwriaeth ar roi organau.

Unwaith eto, fel rydw i'n dweud, mae hyn yn ymwneud â barn y cyhoedd ynglŷn â'r hyn rydym ni'n trio ei wneud yn fan hyn, a thrio eu cael nhw i chwarae rhan ragweithiol mewn gwireddu ein hamcanion ni o ran iechyd y cyhoedd drwy'r ddeddfwriaeth yma.

Thank you very much. Once again, I think there is an amendment here that reflects my background in the communications area. This is our amendment to ensure that the Government raises awareness of this Act and also provides information that helps those moderate drinkers to be even more moderate in their drinking, hopefully, because that is a goal of this Act. 

There are marginal implications, of course, from this Act for those people who perhaps do not drink to excess and may object to this legislation because they feel it's an unfair intervention in their case. What the amendment does is to ask the Government to provide information as to how drinkers can cut down on the amount of alcohol they drink and the changes they can make in their everyday lives—for example, changing to drinks that have a lower alcohol content. Through doing so, they would be able to avoid paying more for their drinks. Bear in mind that using financial incentives to change people's habits is the intention of this Public Health Bill. It would ensure that communication in relation to the Act is written into the Act itself, as was done with the legislation on organ donation.

Once again, as I say, this is related to the public's opinion on what we're trying to do here, and trying to get them to play a proactive part in realising our goals here in relation to public health through this legislation.

Diolch yn fawr am y cyflwyniad yna, Rhun. Suzy, a wyt ti eisiau dod i mewn yn fan hyn?

Thank you very much for that presentation, Rhun. Suzy, do you want to come in here?

Just very quickly, as with the amendment in the previous group, really, it's reasserting the position that scrutiny through ministerial reassurance probably isn't quite good enough when you're talking about primary legislation. If you don't have a well thought-out draft promotion plan to share with us today, I think we need to capture any commitment to do that on the face of the Bill through the introduction of such a duty. 

Diolch, Suzy. Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Suzy. Julie Morgan.

Yes, I think Rhun is making a very important point because I think there is the opportunity with this Bill to use the opportunity to give very important public health messages, and I hope that the Government would look, if not with this amendment now, at the next stage to see if we could possibly have an amendment that would go along with what the committee feels about using this Bill to maximum effect, really, to combat the terrible harm we know alcohol does and the fact that people are looking for help. This will be an opportunity to do that. So, although I think this amendment may not be sufficient in itself, perhaps the Government would look at the next stage to reflect the views of the committee.

10:40

Diolch yn fawr, Julie. Pawb arall yn hapus ar y meinciau? Reit. Galwaf ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i siarad. 

Thank you very much, Julie. Is everyone else content? Yes. So, I call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm going to start by saying that I understand and am supportive of the principle behind the amendment. I don't agree with all of the detail of it, so I'll ask Members not to support the amendment today, but I am happy to take up Julie Morgan's point about working with Members to try and agree an amendment at Stage 3. And, again, that need not be a Government amendment, far from it, but to think about how we have something that is about how we promote the legislation, to build on what's in the explanatory memorandum and the agreement we've already reached with trading standards, where they themselves want to promote the legislation and undertake training and awareness raising of retailers. In particular, their concern is about the small to medium-sized retailers. Surprise, surprise, as you'd expect, large retailers will comply with the law and do so pretty speedily. But, actually, it's about the awareness raising of smaller retailers in particular. And, in doing that, there is the work we're already doing with service providers and organisations to support people who have a problem with alcohol—so, the work we already do with area planning boards and the third sector to provide a range of services as well.

And I think that part of the challenge about the wording as prescribed in the amendment is that it seeks to define on the face of the Bill who and what are hazardous and harmful drinkers, and I think that's a mistake. Apart from anything else, the definitions that we have used at present come from the current advice of chief medical officers across the UK, and I don't think legislating for that on the face of the Bill is a particularly helpful thing to do. That advice may change. Our chief medical officer's advice may be to level up the units of alcohol that they think it is reasonable and safe to undertake for a moderate drinker, or they may choose to change them again, because, actually, during the passage of this Bill, chief medical officers changed their advice on levels of appropriate drinking. So, I think it's a mistake to put that in there. I also think, when we look at the financial impact, and we already have a range of that in both the explanatory memorandum and the regulatory impact assessment, which we've committed to revising again before Stage 3, and also the work done by Sheffield—. But I do think, though, that despite the disagreement with some of the detail in the amendment, the broad purpose of having a promotional duty on the face of the Bill is one that I'm content with, and I think we should be able to work between us to find an amendment to come forward at Stage 3 to do so. And I also think the sharing of information around the guidance that I indicated in the previous debate should help to do so as well. 

Diolch yn fawr, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. Galwaf, felly, ar Rhun ap Iorwerth i ymateb i'r ddadl. Rhun. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I therefore call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate. Rhun. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Rwy'n meddwl bod hon wedi bod yn drafodaeth bwysig iawn. Diolch yn fawr iawn i Julie Morgan am ei sylwadau hi ac i'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet hefyd. Rwy'n cytuno, a dweud y gwir, ei fod o'n gamgymeriad i rhoi'r ffigurau yna yn y gwelliant, ac ar sail hynny yn unig, mi dynnaf i'r gwelliant yna yn ôl. Mae i fi roi hynny yn y Bil yn dadwneud fy nadl yn erbyn rhoi'r pris yn y Bil. Felly, rwy'n derbyn hynny. Ond, hyd yn oed pe bawn i'n hapus efo hynny, rydw i'n meddwl bod—. Mi wnaf i gymryd gair yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet ei fod o'n barod i gydweithio efo fi ar welliant ar gyfer cymal nesaf y drafodaeth ar y Bil yma. Mi rydw i'n sicr yn bwriadu parhau a chwilio am welliant gwell, ac rwy'n edrych ymlaen i gydweithio efo'r Llywodraeth a gobeithio cael cefnogaeth y Llywodraeth i fy ngwelliant i yn hynny o beth. Felly, mi dynnaf i hynny yn ôl yn y cyd-destun ein bod ni wedi cymryd cam pwysig ymlaen drwy'n trafodaeth ni y bore yma. 

Thank you very much. I think this has been a very important discussion. Thank you to Julie Morgan for her comments, and also to the Cabinet Secretary. I agree to be honest that it is a mistake to put those figures in the amendment, and on the basis of that only, I will withdraw that amendment. My putting that in the Bill, of course, undoes my argument about putting the price in the Bill. So, I do accept that. But, even if I was happy with that, I do think that—. I will take the Cabinet Secretary at his word that he is willing to work with me regarding an amendment for the next stage of this discussion on the Bill. And, certainly, I would like to continue to look for a better amendment, and I look forward to working with the Government on that, and I hope to have their support in that. So, I'm very happy to withdraw that in the context that we have taken an important step forward in this discussion this morning. 

Diolch yn fawr, Rhun. Felly, a allaf ofyn i'r pwyllgor a oes gwrthwynebiad i dynnu gwelliant 18 yn ôl? Dim gwrthwynebiad. Felly, mae gwelliant 18 yn cael ei dynnu yn ôl.

Thank you very much, Rhun. So, may I ask the committee whether there is opposition to the withdrawal of amendment 18? There is no opposition. Therefore, amendment 18 is withdrawn. 

Tynnwyd gwelliant 18 yn ôl gyda chaniatâd y pwyllgor.

Amendment 18 withdrawn by leave of the committee.

Grŵp 6: Adroddiad ar weithrediad ac effaith y Ddeddf (Gwelliannau 9, 10, 11, 14)
Group 6: Report on operation & effect of the Act (Amendments 9, 10, 11, 14)

Mae hynny'n ein symud ni ymlaen, felly, i grŵp 6 o welliannau—adroddiad ar weithrediad ac effaith y Ddeddf. Mae gwelliannau 9, 10, 11 ac 14 yn fan hyn. Y prif welliant yn y grŵp yw gwelliant 9 yn enw Angela Burns. Felly, mi wnaf i alw ar Suzy Davies i gynnig gwelliant 9 ac i siarad am y gwelliannau yn y grŵp yma i gyd. Suzy.

That takes us to group 6 of amendments, and these relate to the report on the operation and effect of the Act, and amendments 9 10, 11 and 14 relate to this group. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 9 in the name of Angela Burns. So, I'll call on Suzy Davies to move amendment 9 and to speak to the amendments in this group. Suzy.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 9 (Angela Burns).

Amendment 9 (Angela Burns) moved.

These amendments relate to section 21 of the Bill, which deals with the reporting on the operation and effect of the Act. It's a section that has particular significance, as the report referred to is likely to be the core evidence to be considered in any decision whether or not to abandon the sunset provisions of this Act using section 22. Amendment 9, which I move now, comes back to this point about the confidence of the legislature in this Bill and the secondary legislation that flows from it. We're all aware of the mixed views on the efficacy of the Act—the missing evidence, the conflicting views that are reflected very visibly in the Stage 1 report. And so I think it's therefore very much in the Welsh Government's advantage to secure genuine understanding and support of those who scrutinise them, before taking any decision on the lifespan of this piece of law.

Amendment 9 does two things. Firstly, it rejects the presentation of a report of the effect of the Act at the end of five years, and asks that a report be produced after two years, and annually thereafter. We agree completely with witnesses who said that trying to make any assessment after just one year would probably be fruitless, but after two years, and then annually to assess any trends, I think would be valuable. The Welsh Government advises that it would be carrying out it's own internal reviews during this period anyway. In particular, where public interest is very high in a piece of legislation, as in this case, I think there is some genuine merit in making more frequent evaluation more visible. And what would not be convincing, I think, five years down the line, is a hefty tome of evidence, collated and reported by Government, after five years of work, effectively behind closed doors, and working to parameters that they themselves have decided. I think it's a five-year period where it would actually help Government to show us your workings, if you like, so that we can scrutinise how you're gathering and analysing evidence.

The second thing amendment 9 does is remove the perception, however unfair—and I accept it would be unfair in many cases—that Government can produce a report that suits its own narrative. By acceding to the list of criteria that we've suggested in this amendment, Welsh Government will be asking questions that we, on behalf of our constituents, think are relevant and useful. It doesn't preclude Government asking any other questions, or carrying out separate research, but these are the factors that we think will help constituents decide whether this legislation has been successful or not. And, in particular, I draw your attention to the requirement that the report should provide an evaluation of the effect of minimum pricing on persons whose consumption is considered to be hazardous or harmful—the very target of this legislation. We've included some definitions of hazardous and harmful in amendment 14, which are taken directly from the Minister's explanatory memorandum.

Amendment 9 also asks for evidence on the effect of this Act on spending and health in deprived areas, in the incidence of domestic violence, as well as commercial and illegal trading consequences, amongst other things. It was quite a lengthy list, but it can be added to by Government.

Amendment 6 is just a drafting change consequential on amendment 9, so I don't propose to talk to that.

Amendment 10 pursues a similar theme, by making sure that, in preparing the report—whenever it's to be done—Welsh Ministers ensure that they include bodies with functions relating to public health, alcohol retailers, and alcohol producers, as well as whoever else they think is appropriate. So, these words don't restrict Welsh Ministers in any way; it just guarantees us, Members—we're the Parliament here, we are the scrutineers, and we need to be certain that these particular groups aren't—. Perhaps 'sidelined' is overstating it, but we want their views in particular reflected in the report, alongside any others that the Government thinks are useful, but are weighted so that we get to see what we want to see as scrutineers. Effectively, it's about certainty about what we want measured, Cabinet Secretary, and I genuinely think this will help the Government in the long run. So, I recommend these amendments to Members.

10:45

Diolch yn fawr, Suzy. Rhun.

Thank you very much, Suzy. Rhun.

Dim ond yn fyr iawn i ddweud y byddwn ni'n cefnogi'r gwelliannau yma, oherwydd y mwyaf o sgrwtini a'r mwyaf o werthuso sy'n cael ei wneud, y gorau—mor syml â hynny.

Just to say that we will be supporting this amendment, because the more scrutiny and the more evaluation that takes place, the better—it's as simple as that.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhun. A oes Aelod arall yn dymuno siarad? Nac oes. Galwaf, felly, ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i siarad. Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet.

Thank you very much, Rhun. Do any other Members wish to speak? No. Therefore, I call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak. Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Cadeirydd. I've again listened, and had a previous conversation with the Welsh Conservatives, about the rationale behind the amendments, and it was helpful to exchange views, even though we don't agree. The Government continues to not agree that it would be appropriate to have the evaluation requested after two years, and an annual evaluation thereafter, before we reach the safeguards already built in to the legislation, with a sunset clause and an evaluation at the end of the five-year period. And so I will ask committee members to reject all of the amendments. I'd simply return briefly to amendment 14, at the outset—it may be confusing, but it goes back to the previous debate we've had about having definitions on the face of the Bill of hazardous and harmful drinkers. I reiterate my point that I don't think that's a helpful thing to do, because those definitions could change, bearing in mind the advice that we have and we are relying upon from chief medical officers acting together across the UK.

We recognise the importance of comprehensive evaluation and review. That's why we've committed to do so, and this is really, I guess, a dispute about the length of time when that evaluation and comprehensive review should be undertaken, and the level of detail that should be prescribed, or not, on the fact of the Bill about what should go into it. The Bill already requires Ministers to publish a report on the operational effect of the legislation at the end of a five-year period. That has been strongly supported by external stakeholders. For example, in evidence, this committee heard from Julie Bishop from Public Health Wales, Dr Ranjini Rao from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and John Holmes from the Sheffield alcohol research group. In addition, directors of public protection, Welsh heads of trading standards and the Welsh Local Government Association have welcomed the plan to review after five years. That's because you do need time to understand the impact of the legislation.

We're thinking about health trends in particular. We may see some immediate points, but actually to see real trends in health outcomes and behaviour from alcohol harm—well, in people who suffer from alcohol harm and lose their life from it, it tends not to be something that happens over a two-year period. So, to try and understand the efficacy of the legislation after that period of time, I think, is actually getting on the road to asking a question that is getting along to: are we asking a question just to fail, as opposed to really understanding the impact of the legislation? There is frankly the cost of having not just the two-year review with the full, exhaustive review category set out, but also an annual review thereafter. I just don't think that would be a sensible or a useful way to expend public time and money in doing so. You'd have a rolling programme of one review after the other—one review ends and another one starts. I simply don't think that that is a sensible way to go about this.

We do, though, recognise that this is a novel area. That's why we've put in the five-year evaluation. That's why there's a backstop for a sunset clause as well. It's also why I've committed before—and I'm happy to put it on the record again—my commitment to working with this committee and other stakeholders to look at the detail of that evaluation: what should go into it, as well as, obviously, making that evaluation public. I'm trying to be helpful in indicating again that, with the two-year review that the Government will do, I will publish outcomes of that so that that will be made public. So, there will be a public statement about that two-year review, as we're moving along. I'm also happy to indicate, again, that not only would I be happy to share plans with this committee, but I'll write to the committee at the end of Stage 2 to outline our early plans for evaluation that we intend to take forward. That would build on what is already in the explanatory memorandum. I also do want to learn from what is happening—if the Assembly agrees—in Wales, before we get to five years for an evaluation, and emerging evidence from Scotland too.

I think this comes to whether it is appropriate to put on the face of the Bill a prescriptive list now about what must be on the face of the Bill. A successor committee to this one, having a conversation after about five years of operation of a minimum unit pricing regime, may well have other priorities that they wish to be prioritised within an evaluation, before the Assembly decides whether to continue for a more permanent period with a minimum unit pricing regime. I think that people should be cautious about wanting to put on the face of the Bill now what must go into that and what must be prioritised, when evidence between now and then may change and the views of the legislature at the time may well be different about what should go into that evaluation. So, I want to be as open as possible about how we develop that, but I'd ask Members to reject the amendments and to take comfort from the five-year period that we've already built in, the sunset clause, the commitment to publish after two years, the outcome of the Government review and also for this committee, and a successor committee, to be involved in a conversation about what should go into that evaluation. And we'll clearly enter into that conversation again in the next group of amendments, Chair.

10:50

Diolch yn fawr i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. Galwaf ar Suzy Davies i ymateb i'r ddadl. Suzy.

Thank you very much to the Cabinet Secretary. I call on Suzy Davies to reply to the debate. Suzy.

Diolch. Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. I listened to what you were saying. Your opening remarks just confirmed for me that this Bill isn't quite ready to go yet, actually, because if it were, there'd be nothing to fear from this greater scrutiny and us as a Parliament following closely the process as it goes along. I don't actually accept that you wouldn't see any behavioural change at all, if this were a successful Act, during those two years. It may not be great, but it may be an indication. More importantly, if you don't see any behavioural change, that would be an important factor to pick up early on in this process, if you like.

In terms of the list of things that we would like considered in a report—preferably in a two-year report—these are things that we want to see, these are things that your scrutinisers would like to see, and I don't think you should fear that. The whole process is only, provided the sunset clause impacts, five or six years anyway, so the fact that there would be perhaps changes about what this Parliament thinks are more important questions to ask I think is probably not the hugest of risks. And even if it does arise, this committee can recommend that the amendments be brought to the Act in due course—changes to the Act.

I thought it was very brave of you to respond by saying that the cost of scrutiny is something that you're considering. The cost of scrutiny is a matter for this place, not for Government, and I'm slightly annoyed that you've actually raised it as a reason why you shouldn't do this. It's up to us to decide if it's too expensive. But, thank you for your answer. I think I would have preferred something a little bit more accommodating, which said that you would take some of what we said into account, possibly to consider an amendment of your own at Stage 3.

10:55

Diolch. Felly, i gadarnhau, Suzy, a wyt ti'n dymuno symud i bleidlais ar welliant 9?

Thank you. So, just to confirm, Suzy, do you wish to proceed to a vote on amendment 9?

Felly, symudwn i bleidlais ar welliant 9. Os gwrthodir gwelliant 9, bydd gwelliant 11 yn methu. Felly, y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 9? A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Mae yna wrthwynebiad, felly fe awn ni i bleidlais. A allaf i ofyn felly—? Y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 9? Y sawl sydd o blaid i ddangos eu dwylo. Tri. Y sawl sydd yn erbyn. Pedwar. Y sawl sy'n ymatal. Un. Felly, i gadarnhau, gwrthodwyd gwelliant 9. 

Therefore, we will move to a vote on amendment 9. If amendment 9 is not agreed, amendment 11 will fall. So, the question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection]. There is objection, therefore we move to a vote by show of hands. May I ask, therefore—? The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Three. Those against. Four. Those abstaining. One. Therefore, just to confirm, amendment 9 is not agreed.

Gwelliant 9: O blaid: 3, Yn erbyn: 4, Ymatal: 1

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 9: For: 3, Against: 4, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Felly, mae gwelliant 11 yn methu.

So, amendment 11 falls.

Methodd gwelliant 11.

Amendment 11 fell.

Suzy, a ydych chi'n dymuno symud gwelliant 10 hefyd?

Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 10 as well?

Gwelliant—pa un, sori?

Amendment—which one, sorry?

Gwelliant 10—yr ail welliant yn y grŵp yna.

It's amendment 10—the second amendment in this group.

Nid wyt ti eisiau. Rwyt ti'n tynnu'r gwelliant yna nôl, wyt ti?

You don't want to. So, you're withdrawing that amendment, are you?

Esgusodwch fi, mae'n ddrwg gyda fi.

Excuse me, I'm sorry.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 10 (Angela Burns).

Amendment 10 (Angela Burns) moved.

Rwyt ti yn symud. Reit. Felly, y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 10? A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Mae yna wrthwynebiad. Felly, fe awn ni i bleidlais. Y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 10? Y sawl sydd o blaid i ddangos. Tri. Y sawl sydd yn erbyn. Pedwar. Y sawl sydd yn ymatal. Un. Felly, fe gaf i gadarnhau y gwrthodwyd gwelliant 10.

You are moving the amendment. Therefore, the question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection]. There is objection. Therefore, we'll move to a vote by show of hands. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Those in favour please raise your hands. Three. Those against. Four. Those abstaining. One. Therefore, just to confirm, amendment 10 is not agreed.

Gwelliant 10: O blaid: 3, Yn erbyn: 4, Ymatal: 1

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 10: For: 3, Against: 4, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Grŵp 7: Rheoliadau a wneir o dan adran 22 (Gwelliannau 19, 12)
Group 7: Regulations made under section 22 (Amendments 19,12)

Mae hynny i gyd yn ein symud ni ymlaen i grŵp 7 o'r gwelliannau. Mae grŵp 7 yn ymwneud â rheoliadau a wneir o dan adran 22. Gwelliannau 19 ac 12 sydd yn y fan hyn. Felly, y prif welliant yn y grŵp ydy gwelliant 19, yn enw Rhun ap Iorwerth. Felly, galwaf ar Rhun ap Iorwerth i gynnig gwelliant 19 ac i siarad am welliant 19. Rhun.

That all moves us on to group 7 of amendments. Group 7 relates to regulations made under section 22. Theses are amendments 19 and 12. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 19, in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. So, I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 19 and to speak to the amendments in this group. Rhun.

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 19 (Rhun ap Iorwerth).

Amendment 19 (Rhun ap Iorwerth) moved.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Mae'r ddau welliant yma, gwelliant 12 gan y Ceidwadwyr ac 19 gennym ni, unwaith eto'n ymwneud â gwerthuso a sgrwtini a phenderfynu a ydy'r Bil yma ac a ydy'r ddeddfwriaeth yma yn cael yr effaith rydym ni'n dymuno iddo fe i'w gael. Nid wyf yn teimlo bod gwelliant 12 gan y Ceidwadwyr yn mynd yn ddigon pell oherwydd ei fod o'n sôn am sgrwtini y Cynulliad. Felly, mi fyddwn ni'n pleidleisio'n erbyn hynny, achos ein bod ni eisiau bod ychydig bach yn fwy penodol, fel rydym ni'n gweld yn ein gwelliant ni, ynglŷn â rôl y pwyllgor perthnasol mewn sgrwtini a rhoi sicrwydd ynglŷn â beth sy'n digwydd ynglŷn ag ailymestyn y ddeddfwriaeth ar ôl y cyfnod machlud.

Mi ystyriom ni'r posibilrwydd o ofyn i'r Llywodraeth gyhoeddi adroddiad ar ddiwedd y cyfnod yna, ond mae'r rheini'n gallu mynd ar goll. Yn hytrach, rydym ni wedi cynnig y gwelliant yma sy'n gofyn i bwyllgor Cynulliad baratoi adroddiad cyn i Gynulliad yn y dyfodol ymestyn y ddeddfwriaeth. Rydym ni'n meddwl y byddai hwn yn gallu bod yn ffordd fwy effeithiol o symud ymlaen na chael adroddiad Llywodraeth, oherwydd mi fyddai Pwyllgor yn gallu gwahodd y tystion a gwybodaeth ysgrifenedig a chael elfen o annibyniaeth wrth edrych ar effeithiau a sgil-effeithiau y ddeddfwriaeth.

Rydym ni'n meddwl, felly, y byddai adroddiad felly yn llawer mwy pwerus ac ystyrlon wrth ddylanwadu ar bleidlais yn y Cynulliad llawn yn y dyfodol, yn lle dim ond rhoi ystyriaeth i adroddiad y Llywodraeth. Y tebyg ydy y byddai hynny'n fwy defnyddiol i Lywodraeth hefyd. Felly, unwaith eto, sgrwtini a rhoi sicrwydd i'r cyhoedd bod pob cam o'r ffordd yn mynd i gael ei bwyso a'i fesur yn ofalus.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, these two amendments, 12 from the Conservatives and 19 from myself, are in relation to evaluation and scrutiny and decisions in relation to whether this Bill and this legislation is going to have the impact we want it to have. I don't feel that amendment 12 from the Conservatives goes far enough because it talks about scrutiny by the Assembly. So, I would vote against that, because we would like to be a little more specific, as can be seen in our amendment, regarding the role of the relevant committee in scrutinising and giving assurance as to what will happen in relation to re-extending this legislation after the sunset period.

We did consider the possibility of asking the Government to publish a report at the end of that period, however, they can get lost. Rather, we have tabled this amendment, which asks a committee of the Assembly to prepare a report before a future Assembly extends the legislation. We feel this could be a more effective way of moving forward than having a Government report, because a committee of course would be able to invite witnesses in and ask for written evidence and have an element of independence in looking at the effects and the side effects of this particular legislation.

So, we feel that a report of that ilk would be more powerful and meaningful in influencing a vote in the full Assembly in the future, rather than only considering a Government report. I think probably that would be more useful to Government also. So, once again, scrutiny and giving assurance to the public that every step of the way will be weighed up carefully.

11:00

Diolch yn fawr, Rhun. Galwaf ar Suzy Davies i siarad.

Thank you very much, Rhun. I call on Suzy Davies to speak.

Thank you very much, Chair. Perhaps I can just ask you to reconsider this, Rhun, because, actually, our amendment doesn't cut across yours—it's complementary to it. Yours refers to the responsible committee of the National Assembly looking at the report that's laid by Welsh Government. Ours is about imposing a due regard on the Welsh Ministers themselves to consider their own report, and the reason we do that is because, of course, this report could reveal evidence that's inconvenient to any wishes that the Welsh Government may have in due course to actually extend this law rather than complying with the sunset clause. So, I would say that this actually strengthens and complements yours rather than cutting across it, because, actually, the obligation is different. It's a completely different thing that we're talking about.   

Diolch, Suzy. A oes unrhyw Aelod arall yn dymuno siarad? Na. Symudwn ni felly. Galwaf ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i siarad. Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet.

Thank you, Suzy. Do any other Members wish to speak? No. We'll therefore move on, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak. Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'll ask again for the committee not to support the current amendments tabled, but I want to start at the outset by saying I think it should be possible for us to agree on a way forward to Stage 3. In the previous group debate, we talked about the evaluation report and about having that at five years. So, we're now talking about what happens at the end of a five-year period should the Bill proceed and how to get the involvement of stakeholders and, indeed, a successor committee. So, I think it would be very, very unusual if a successor committee was not interested in having a conversation about what should go into that evaluation and then not wanting to take evidence of its own to publish before that as well. So, I think it's likely this will happen anyway, regardless of whether these amendments are passed in this form or another anyway. And I'm also happy to reiterate that I'll write to the committee about the evaluation process and where we are now.

I think part of the challenge though is that if we are going to legislate in the way that is currently drafted, we're not just saying that an Assembly committee may do this—it already could do this. This committee would already have the power to do this in any event. But it's also about the requirement for the committee to do so. Generally, you try not to, or we say you shouldn't bind future Assemblies or committees on what they must do. There would be a legal obligation upon a future committee to do so, and a future Assembly may decide, actually, for whatever reason, it may not wish to do so. But I do think that there should be a way to deliver an amendment that recognises the point that is being made by both Rhun and Suzy about wanting to try and get some assurance about the level of scrutiny that there would be, and the openness in publishing the evaluation report, and then having to respond to that in seeking to take forward a minimum unit pricing regime.

So, this is about the form of the amendments that I think we would hopefully be able to agree to deliver that comfort, and just the point about whether the current Assembly should bind a future one on what it must do, not what it may do, but I recognise that people will want commitments from the Government about making sure information is available from the evaluation that is taken account of in any proposal the Government may make to the Assembly about continuing a minimum unit pricing regime after an initial five-year period.

Diolch yn fawr, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. 

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

My legendary benevolence is on show again. Suzy, you had a point of clarification. 

Yes, because I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do interventions, sorry. It was just to confirm, one of the reasons that I'm keen on supporting the Plaid amendment on this is for the reasons that I brought an amendment earlier, and that is we have experience in this Assembly of regulations being brought forward at fairly short notice and only the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee or Plenary have a chance to examine them. I think for a Bill of this nature, it is critical that a subject committee gets the chance to look at it, and the only way we can actually guarantee that is by placing that on the face of the Bill. Expectations are one thing, obligations are another. Diolch.

Diolch. Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet.

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary.

Which is why, Chair, I've indicated I would like to be able to work through an amendment to be agreed, where we can provide the comfort that is being sought to do so. So, I'm more than happy to continue working with other parties to do so before we get to Stage 3. And, again, I'm entirely relaxed about whether it's a Government amendment or a non-Government amendment. The point is to agree a way forward to achieve the purpose that both Rhun and Suzy request.

Diolch yn fawr, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, ar hynny, am yr eglurder hefyd. Galwaf ar Rhun ap Iorwerth i ymateb i'r ddadl. Rhun.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary, for that and for those words of clarity. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate. Rhun.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Yn fyr, rydw i'n mynd i'w wthio i bleidlais, jest er mwyn nodi'r pwysigrwydd rydw i'n ystyried sydd yna dros edrych ymlaen i'r pwynt yna lle byddwn ni'n penderfynu ar ymestyn y ddeddfwriaeth yma os ydy hi'n cael ei phasio yn y lle cyntaf. Rydw i'n cydnabod, serch hynny, fod yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet wedi gwneud sylwadau sydd yn awgrymu ei fod o'n cyd-fynd â'r bwriad yn gyffredinol, ond, na, rydw i'n meddwl bod hwn yn gorfod bod yn rhan eithaf canolog o sut rydym ni'n blaengynllunio rŵan at y dyfodol. Rydw i hefyd yn derbyn y cais gan Suzy arnaf i i edrych eto—gwnaf i ddim pleidleisio yn erbyn y gwelliant arall, mi wnaf i ymatal, achos rydw i'n meddwl, ydy, mae'n bosib bod yna rhywfaint o gamddealltwriaeth ynglŷn â'r nod yma. Ond mi awn ni i bleidlais ac os, yn dilyn y patrwm y bore yma, nad ydyn ni'n ennill ar hwn, wel, rydw i'n gobeithio y gallwn ni gydweithio ar ddod â rhywbeth amgen yn ei le o yn y cyfnod nesaf. 

Thank you very much. Briefly, I am going to put this to a vote, just in order to acknowledge the importance I attribute to looking forward to that point when we will be deciding on extending this legislation if it is passed. I acknowledge, of course, that the Cabinet Secretary has made comments that suggest that he does agree with the intention in general, but I do think this has to be quite a central part of how we forward plan now for the future. I also accept the request from Suzy for me to look again—I won't vote against the other amendment, I will abstain, because I do think there's some misunderstanding possibly regarding this. But let's go to a vote and if, following the pattern of this morning, we don't win on this, then I hope that we can work together on it to put something else in place.

11:05

Diolch yn fawr. Felly, rydym ni yn symud i bleidlais ar welliant 19. Y cwestiwn, felly, ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 19? A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Mae yna wrthwynebiad, felly rydym ni'n symud i bleidlais. Y rheini sydd o blaid i godi eu dwylo: tri. Y sawl sydd yn erbyn gwelliant 19 i godi eu dwylo. [Chwerthin.]

Thank you very much. So, we do move to a vote on amendment 19. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, so we will move to that vote by show of hands. Those in favour of the amendment, please raise your hands: three. Those against amendment 19 please raise your hands. [Laughter.]

Pedwar. A'r sawl sy'n ymatal: un. Felly, yn y pen draw, gwrthodwyd gwelliant 19. Roedd yna ychydig bach o gyffro yn fan yna. 

Four. And those abstaining: one. Therefore, ultimately, amendment 19 was not agreed. There was a bit of excitement there for a moment.

Gwelliant 19: O blaid: 3, Yn erbyn: 4, Ymatal: 1

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 19: For: 3, Against: 4, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Gan fod gwelliant 19 wedi'i wrthod, rydym ni'n symud—. Gan fod gwelliant 9 wedi'i wrthod, mae gwelliant 11 yn methu. Rydym ni'n symud ymlaen i welliant 12 rŵan. Suzy, a ydych chi'n dymuno cynnig gwelliant 12? 

As amendment 19 was not agreed, we move—. As amendment 9 was not agreed, amendment 11 falls. So, we move on to amendment 12. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 12?

Cynigiwyd gwelliant 12 (Angela Burns).

Amendment 12 (Angela Burns) moved.

Wyt, rwyt ti'n dymuno cynnig. 

Yes, you wish to move. 

Grêt, diolch yn fawr, Suzy. Felly, y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 12? A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Mae yna wrthwynebiad. Felly, rydym ni'n symud i bleidlais. Y rheini sydd o blaid gwelliant 12, a allan nhw ddangos drwy godi eu dwylo? Un. Y rheini sydd yn erbyn, a allan nhw godi eu dwylo? Pedwar. A'r sawl sy'n ymatal? Mae yna dri yn ymatal. Ond y canlyniad ydy gwrthodwyd gwelliant 12. 

Great, thank you very much, Suzy. So, the question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. So, we move to a vote by show of hands. Those in favour of amendment 12, please raise your hands. One. Those against, please raise your hands. Four. And those abstaining: there are three abstentions. So, the result is that amendment 12 is not agreed. 

Gwelliant 12: O blaid: 1, Yn erbyn: 4, Ymatal: 3

Gwrthodwyd y gwelliant

Amendment 12: For: 1, Against: 4, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

A gan bod gwelliant 17 wedi'i wrthod, mae gwelliant 20 yn methu. 

Rydym ni'n mynd i waredu gwelliant 13 nawr. Mae 13 wedi methu, onid ydy? A 21 wedi mynd. Un deg pedwar sydd ar ôl. Suzy, a ydych chi'n dymuno cynnig gwelliant 14?

And as amendment 17 was not agreed previously, amendment 20 falls. 

So, we move to dispose of amendment 13 now, but amendment 13 has also fallen, and 21. So, amendment 14 remains. Suzy, do you wish to move amendment 14?

Ydych. Diolch yn fawr. Felly y cwestiwn ydy: a ddylid derbyn—?

You do. Thank you very much. So, the question is—.

Gadeirydd, ai grŵp 6 oedd hwnnw?

Chair, was that with regard to group 6?  

Lle wyt ti nawr? Na, rydym ni yn grŵp 7. Ie, grŵp 6 oedd 14, ie. 

Where are you now? No, we're in group 7. Amendment 14 was in group 6. 

Ie, aros funud, rydym ni'n mynd i ddod i hynny nawr. 

Yes, wait a minute, we're going to come to that now. 

Ydy 14—? Na, nid wyf yn gwthio achos mae 9 wedi methu. Ie?

Is 14—? No, I'm not pushing a vote on that because 9 has fallen. Yes?

Mae 9 wedi methu, ydy. 

Yes, amendment 9 has fallen. 

Ydy, felly nid oes pwynt cael 14.

Yes, so there's no point having 14. 

So, rwyt ti'n tynnu fe nôl.

So, you're withdrawing it? 

Ocê. Felly, rydym ni wedi clywed yma fod gwelliant 14 wedi'i dynnu yn ôl. A oes yna unrhyw wrthwynebiad i welliant 14 yn cael ei dynnu yn ôl? Nid oes yna ddim gwrthwynebiad. 

Okay. So, we have heard now that amendment 14 has been withdrawn. Is there any opposition to the withdrawal of amendment 14? There is none. 

Ni chynigiwyd gwelliant 14 (Angela Burns). 

Amendment 14 (Angela Burns) not moved.

Da iawn. Felly, mae gwelliant 14 wedi'i dynnu yn ôl, nid ydym ni'n symud hwnnw. Rydym ni wedi cyrraedd y diwedd. Mae'r gwelliannau i gyd wedi cael eu trafod mewn un ffordd neu'r llall. Mae pob gwelliant wedi cael ei waredu. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi gyd. A allaf i yn benodol ddiolch i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet a'i swyddogion am fod yn bresennol? Dylech chi, wrth gwrs, yn naturiol, fod yn gwybod y byddwch chi'n derbyn trawsgrifiad o'r cyfarfod yma i gadarnhau ei fod e'n gywir yn ffeithiol.

Mae hyn, felly, yn dod â thrafodion Cyfnod 2 i ben. Bydd Cyfnod 3 yn dechrau yfory, a bydd y dyddiadau perthnasol ar gyfer trafodaethau Cyfnod 3 yn cael eu cyhoeddi maes o law. Mae'r Rheolau Sefydlog yn gwneud darpariaeth i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet baratoi memorandwm esboniadol diwygiedig sy'n ystyried y gwelliannau y cytunwyd arnyn nhw heddiw. Bydd y memorandwm diwygiedig yn cael ei osod o leiaf pump diwrnod gwaith cyn trafodion Cyfnod 3. Felly, dyna ddiwedd ein trafodaethau ar Fil Iechyd y Cyhoedd (Isafbris am Alcohol) (Cymru), trafodaethau Cyfnod 2 a gwaredu'r gwelliannau, felly diwedd eitem 2. Diolch yn fawr iawn i chi, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. Diolch yn fawr.

Excellent, so amendment 14 has been withdrawn, we don't move that. And we've reached the end. All of the amendments have been discussed in one way or another. Every amendment has been disposed of, so thank you very much to you all. May I specifically thank the Cabinet Secretary and his officials for their attendance? You will, of course, know that you'll receive a transcript of the meeting to check for factual accuracy.

This, therefore, completes Stage 2 proceedings. Stage 3 begins tomorrow, and the relevant dates for Stage 3 proceedings will be published in due course. The Standing Orders make provision for the Cabinet Secretary to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum, taking account of the amendments agreed today. The revised memorandum will be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings. So, that brings the discussions on the Public Health Wales (Minimum Alcohol Price) (Wales) Bill Stage 2 to an end, and we have disposed of the amendments, so it's the end of item 2. Thank you very much to you, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you very much.

Barnwyd y cytunwyd ar bob adran o’r Bil.

All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.

3. Papurau i'w nodi
3. Papers to note

Rydym ni'n symud i eitem 3 rŵan, a phapurau i'w nodi. Mi fydd Aelodau wedi gweld llythyr gan Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet mewn perthynas â rhestr perfformwyr meddygol Cymru gyfan. Unrhyw sylw? Hapus i'w nodi? Pawb yn hapus i'w nodi.

We move on now to item 3, and papers to note. Members will have seen the letter from the Cabinet Secretary with regard to the all-Wales medical performers list. Any comments? Are you content to note that paper? Everyone is content to note.

11:10
4. Cynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod
4. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting

Cynnig:

bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi).

Motion:

that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi).

Cynigiwyd y cynnig.

Motion moved.

Rydym ni'n symud ymlaen rŵan i eitem 4, a chynnig o dan Reol Sefydlog 17.42 i benderfynu gwahardd y cyhoedd o weddill y cyfarfod. A ydyw pawb yn cytuno efo hynny, er mwyn inni allu ymdrin efo materion yn ymwneud â'r adroddiad ar feddyginiaeth wrthseicotig? Pawb yn cytuno. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Awn ni i'r sesiwn breifat. Diolch yn fawr.

So, we'll move on now to item 4 and the motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Does everyone agree with that, so that we can discuss issues with regard to the report on the use of antipsychotic medication in care homes? Everyone is in agreement. We'll go into private session. Thank you very much. 

Derbyniwyd y cynnig.

Daeth rhan gyhoeddus y cyfarfod i ben am 11:10.

Motion agreed.

The public part of the meeting ended at 11:10.