English: Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to Members who have contributed to today's debate on the general principles of the Bill. There have long been calls for Wales to change its relationship with alcohol across political parties, and I expect this Bill to make a real and material contribution to reducing hazardous and harmful drinking and, ultimately, to save lives. I want to thank Members from a variety of different parties - the Conservative group, the Plaid Cymru group and, indeed, the health committee - for indicating their support for the Bill today, and I recognise that there's more to do as we move into Stage 2 to see some of the details, some of the points, and of course the written response of the Government to the recommendations that I've indicated. I do want to try and outline and deal with some of the issues raised in the debate, and in particular some of the points made in Dai Lloyd's contribution, but also in Vikki Howells's and I believe at least in part in Angela Burns's contribution as well, and this is the point about the end point at which we have more evidence. That's why we recognise that this is an innovative approach to public health legislation. It's based on modelling that helped Scotland to take this step forward as well for their own minimum unit price Bill, and they've used a range of statistical evidence to model the potential impact of this, and I think that's an entirely reasonable basis on which to proceed, and I do have confidence in their modelled evidence. But we recognise that it is innovative and we want to understand the impacts of it. That's why, in the Government's Bill, we've proposed a sunset clause. We propose that we must have an evaluation at the end of that five-year period to understand the impact of minimum unit pricing if the Government then asks the Assembly to agree that a minimum unit pricing regime should continue into the future. So, there's something here about whether we are prepared to take this step to have this regime introduced, but, in any event, even if we do - and I hope we do - we will get to a point where we'll have an evaluation of the real impact here in Wales in our context. I recognise some of the comments made by both the health committee and, indeed, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee about what should and shouldn't be on the face of the Bill. I'll think again about some of the comments made about what should be on the face of the Bill and in particular about the evaluation. I think I want to take some care though that trying to prescribe on the face of the Bill matters that must be in the evaluation at this point in time as opposed to running through what should be in the evaluation in more than five years' time after that experience of the Bill in practice - I'd be nervous about prescribing a range of matters on the face of the Bill at this point. But I think I would be able to give some confidence to Members about the approach that the Government would take on what to include in any evaluation to make sure it's real and meaningful for Members who will then be asked - potentially asked - to continue with a minimum unit pricing regime. That's something we will need to discuss through Stage 2 and, I hope, beyond. I recognise some of the technical points made by CLAC. I'm thinking about the point about named officers. I'll reflect on that and particularly the analogous provisions that you reference from PACE. I still don't agree that the minimum unit price should be on the face of the Bill. There again there's a disagreement between the constitution committee and indeed the health committee, as well, on that point, and I tried to address that in my opening remarks. But, with respect, I don't accept that having the price on the face of the Bill will help to determine its success. There's more to it than that. On UKIP, we have a straightforward disagreement that I don't think there's much point in spending much time on outlining again today. We understand that we disagree. On the point about responsible legislation, Angela, again, I recognise the point that you're making, particularly the points made by you and others on substitution. That's why I've asked the advisory panel on substance misuse to undertake an evidence review in this area and to publish that as well, so Members will see that as we proceed through Stage 2, and that should be within a matter of weeks, not months, for Members to see. I think there's something here in some of the contributions about both the principle of setting a minimum unit price, but then what the level should be and then to understand the impact of that upon moderate drinkers as well. Again, there's more for us to do, as the Bill proceeds, on how that can happen, on the evidence that is available from the modelling and the store that Members should set by that when being asked to actually approve this piece of legislation. I recognise the points that Rhun made about the potential lifesaving impact of this legislation and, again, the points made both by Vikki Howells and John Griffiths too. I've indicated that we will look to have more money going into front-line services. We want more people to engage in front-line services to help them with alcohol and other substance misuse challenges. We'll always have to think about the level of need coming into those services and making sure that they are well managed, but also properly funded. With respect, I do disagree that taxation is the answer. This is part of what went through the court cases, where the alcohol industry said taxation should be the answer. The problem is that retailers can get around taxes and they do at present; they avoid the impact taxation should have on the price that is paid and they run alcohol as loss leaders. A minimum unit price sets a floor below which you cannot proceed, and that is where you ensure that there has to be a minimum unit price, otherwise we'd simply be left with a situation where we wouldn't have moved much beyond where we are today. But I do recognise what Vikki Howells said about the scale of our challenge and our relationship with alcohol. This Bill is supposed to be part of the answer, but not a silver bullet. It does not replace the need for further education and understanding of the choice that we make as citizens, but it is part of our wide range of approaches to try and have real gain for every community across Wales and a different relationship with alcohol, and I hope that Members will support this Bill here today.
Welsh: Diolch ichi, Llywydd, a diolch i'r Aelodau sydd wedi cyfrannu at y ddadl heddiw ar egwyddorion cyffredinol y Bil. Bu galwadau ers tro ar Gymru i newid ei pherthynas ag alcohol, a hynny o du'r holl bleidiau gwleidyddol, ac rwy'n disgwyl y bydd y Bil hwn yn gwneud cyfraniad gwirioneddol a sylweddol at leihau yfed peryglus a niweidiol ac, yn y pen draw, at achub bywydau. Hoffwn i ddiolch i'r Aelodau o'r gwahanol bleidiau - y grŵp Ceidwadol, grŵp Plaid Cymru ac, yn wir, y pwyllgor iechyd - am nodi eu cefnogaeth ar gyfer y Bil heddiw, ac rwy'n cydnabod bod mwy i'w wneud wrth i ni symud i Gyfnod 2 i weld rhai o'r manylion, rhai o'r pwyntiau, ac wrth gwrs ymateb ysgrifenedig y Llywodraeth i'r argymhellion yr wyf wedi'u nodi. Hoffwn i geisio esbonio ac ymdrin â rhai o'r materion a godwyd yn y ddadl, ac yn arbennig rhai o'r pwyntiau a wnaed yng nghyfraniad Dai Lloyd, ond hefyd gan Vikki Howells ac, rwy'n credu, yn rhannol yng nghyfraniad Angela Burns hefyd, sef y pwynt ynghylch y pwynt yn y pen draw pan fydd gennym fwy o dystiolaeth. Dyna pam ein bod yn cydnabod bod hwn yn ymagwedd arloesol at ddeddfwriaeth iechyd y cyhoedd. Mae wedi'i seilio ar y gwaith modelu a helpodd yr Alban i gymryd y cam hwn ymlaen hefyd ar gyfer eu Bil isafbris uned hwy, ac maen nhw wedi defnyddio ystod o dystiolaeth ystadegol i fodelu'r effaith bosibl yn sgil hyn, ac rwy'n credu bod hynny yn sail gwbl resymol i fwrw ymlaen, ac mae gen i ffydd yn eu tystiolaeth wedi'i modelu. Ond rydym yn cydnabod ei fod yn arloesol ac rydym yn dymuno deall ei effeithiau. Dyna pam, ym Mil y Llywodraeth, yr ydym ni wedi cynnig cymal machlud. Rydym yn cynnig bod yn rhaid i ni gael gwerthusiad ar ddiwedd y cyfnod hwnnw o bum mlynedd i ddeall effaith isafbris uned os bydd y Llywodraeth wedyn yn gofyn i'r Cynulliad gytuno y dylai'r drefn isafbris uned barhau yn y dyfodol. Felly, mae rhywbeth yma ynghylch a ydym ni'n fodlon cymryd y cam hwn i gyflwyno'r drefn hon, ond, beth bynnag, hyd yn oed os ydym yn gwneud hyn - ac rwy'n gobeithio y gwnawn ni - fe fyddwn ni'n cyrraedd pwynt pan fydd gennym werthusiad o'r effaith wirioneddol yma yng Nghymru yn ein cyd-destun ni. Rwy'n cydnabod rhai o'r sylwadau a wnaed gan y pwyllgor iechyd ac, yn wir, y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol ynghylch yr hyn a ddylai fod ac na ddylai fod ar wyneb y Bil. Byddaf yn ystyried eto rai o'r sylwadau a wnaed ynghylch yr hyn a ddylai fod ar wyneb y Bil ac yn arbennig am y gwerthusiad. Rwy'n credu yr hoffwn i bwyllo, serch hynny, rhag ceisio rhagnodi ar wyneb y Bil y materion y mae'n rhaid eu cynnwys yn y gwerthusiad ar y pwynt hwn, yn hytrach na rhedeg drwy'r hyn a ddylai fod yn y gwerthusiad ymhen pum mlynedd neu fwy ar ôl y profiad hwnnw o'r Bil ar waith - byddwn i'n nerfus ynghylch rhagnodi amryw o faterion ar wyneb y Bil ar y pwynt hwn. Ond rwy'n credu y byddwn i'n gallu rhoi rhywfaint o hyder i Aelodau am y dull y byddai'r Llywodraeth yn ei ddefnyddio o bennu beth i'w gynnwys mewn unrhyw werthusiad i wneud yn siŵr ei fod yn real ac yn ystyrlon ar gyfer Aelodau a bydd gofyn iddyn nhw wedyn - o bosibl - barhau â'r drefn isafbris uned. Mae hynny'n rhywbeth y bydd angen i ni ei drafod trwy Gyfnod 2 ac, rwy'n gobeithio, y tu hwnt. Rwy'n cydnabod rhai o'r pwyntiau technegol a wnaed gan CLAC. Rwy'n meddwl am y pwynt am swyddogion a enwir. Byddaf yn ystyried hynny ac yn arbennig y darpariaethau cyfatebol yr ydych yn cyfeirio atynt yn PACE. Rwy'n dal i anghytuno y dylai'r isafbris uned fod ar wyneb y Bil. Ac eto, ceir anghytundeb rhwng y pwyllgor cyfansoddiad, ac yn wir y pwyllgor iechyd, hefyd, ar y pwynt hwnnw, a cheisiais i ymdrin â hynny yn fy sylwadau agoriadol. Ond, â phob parch, nid wyf yn derbyn y bydd cael y pris ar wyneb y Bil yn helpu i benderfynu ar ei lwyddiant. Mae'n ymwneud â mwy na hynny. O ran UKIP, rydym yn syml yn anghytuno, ac nid wyf yn credu bod llawer o bwynt treulio llawer o amser yn egluro hynny eto heddiw. Rydym yn deall ein bod yn anghytuno. Ar y pwynt ynghylch deddfwriaeth gyfrifol, Angela, unwaith eto, rwy'n cydnabod eich pwynt, yn arbennig y pwyntiau a wnaed gennych chi ac eraill ynghylch amnewid. Dyna pam yr wyf wedi gofyn i'r panel cynghori ar gamddefnyddio sylweddau gynnal adolygiad o dystiolaeth yn y maes hwn a'i chyhoeddi hefyd, felly bydd Aelodau yn gweld hynny wrth i ni symud drwy Gyfnod 2, a dylai hynny fod o fewn yr wythnosau, nid misoedd, nesaf, er mwyn i Aelodau ei weld. Credaf fod pwynt mewn rhai o'r cyfraniadau o ran yr egwyddor o bennu isafbris uned, ond ar ba lefel y dylai hynny fod, ac wedyn deall effaith hynny ar yfwyr cymedrol hefyd. Unwaith eto, mae mwy i ni ei wneud, wrth i'r Bil fynd rhagddo, o ran sut y gall hynny ddigwydd, o ran y dystiolaeth sydd ar gael o'r broses fodelu a faint o ystyriaeth y dylai Aelodau ei rhoi i hynny pan ofynnir iddynt gymeradwyo'r darn hwn o ddeddfwriaeth mewn gwirionedd. Rwy'n cydnabod y pwyntiau gan Rhun am effaith y ddeddfwriaeth hon a allai achub bywydau ac, unwaith eto, y pwyntiau a wnaed gan John Griffiths a Vikki Howells hefyd. Rwyf wedi nodi y byddwn yn ceisio rhoi mwy o arian ar gyfer gwasanaethau rheng flaen. Rydym ni'n dymuno cael mwy o bobl yn cymryd rhan mewn gwasanaethau rheng flaen i'w helpu gyda heriau camddefnyddio alcohol a sylweddau eraill. Bydd yn rhaid i ni bob amser feddwl am lefel yr angen sy'n dod at y gwasanaethau hynny a gwneud yn siŵr eu bod wedi eu rheoli'n dda, ond hefyd wedi'u hariannu'n briodol. Â phob parch, rwyf yn anghytuno mai trethiant yw'r ateb. Mae hyn yn rhan o'r hyn a aeth drwy'r achosion llys, pan ddywedodd y diwydiant alcohol y dylid troi at drethiant. Y broblem yw y gall manwerthwyr weithio o amgylch trethi, ac maent yn gwneud hynny ar hyn o bryd; maen nhw'n osgoi'r effaith y dylai trethiant ei chael ar y pris a delir ac yn gwerthu alcohol am golled er mwyn denu prynwyr. Mae isafbris uned yn pennu llawr ac nid oes modd mynd o dan hwnnw, a dyna pam yr ydych yn sicrhau bod yn rhaid cael isafbris uned, fel arall byddem mewn sefyllfa nid anhebyg i'r hyn yr ydym ynddi ar hyn o bryd. Ond rwy'n cydnabod yr hyn a ddywedodd Vikki Howells ynghylch maint yr her i ni a'n perthynas ag alcohol. Bwriad y Bil hwn yw bod yn rhan o'r ateb, nid yn fwled arian. Nid yw'n cael gwared ar yr angen am well addysg a dealltwriaeth o'r dewisiadau a wnawn fel dinasyddion, ond mae yn rhan o'n hamrywiaeth eang o ddulliau i geisio sicrhau buddion gwirioneddol ar gyfer pob cymuned ledled Cymru a pherthynas wahanol ag alcohol, ac rwy'n gobeithio y bydd yr Aelodau yn cefnogi'r Bil hwn yma heddiw.