English: Well, unlike previous speakers to this statement, as the Minister will have anticipated from my question to the First Minister earlier on, my party will not be supporting this measure. That's not to say that we don't support the aim, which is to cut the problems that flow from excessive drinking. But we do not think that this measure is likely to achieve that, and even to the extent that it does, it will do so with the effect of imposing unacceptable costs upon the overwhelming majority of people who drink, like myself, who are not regarded as problem drinkers. Well, others may regard me as a problem, but that would be for different reasons than drink. Will she confirm the figures that are quoted on the BBC website about the impact of this measure - that it is, under a 50p formula, likely to increase the price of a typical can of cider to £1, a bottle of wine to at least £4.69, and a typical litre of vodka to more than £20? Because I think it is vitally important that the public at large realise now, before we even begin debating this measure properly, what the likely impact of it is likely to be. The Minister says that it's aimed at problem drinkers, not at the general population at large, but these are the people who are least likely to be affected by a minimum price for alcohol, not the people who are most likely to be affected. We know from research that has been done that what we might call problem drinkers are price sensitive between brands, so that if you increase the price of one, they'll switch to another, but there's no real evidence whatsoever for showing that they will reduce their consumption of alcohol overall, still less become teetotallers. The price elasticity demand for a real problem drinker is almost by definition zero. It will have no impact upon his or her drinking. One of the issues that is important, of course, is the public order implications of excessive drinking, especially in city centres. We all know the problems of the war zones in city centres on Friday and Saturday nights. So, what matters is not so much the overall consumption of alcohol - you can be a non-drinker for five days of the week and a binge drinker at the weekend. You can have a drink after work and a pleasant conversation and then go home for five days a week and then decide to get hammered at the weekend. This measure is not likely to have the slightest impact I think upon binge drinkers, who are there for that specific purpose. They want to get hammered, and the difference of a few pounds is very unlikely to make any difference to their social behaviour. The Minister has mentioned international evidence for the claims that she's made. I am actually not aware of any evidence internationally and academically on this specific problem of the impact of minimum prices upon problem drinkers. It is very important not to make the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc and look at the health statistics on the one hand and then ascribe them to legislative measures that might have taken place as though there are no other factors that might have influenced them. We know that in recent years there has been significant reduction in the problems created by alcohol. This is certainly the case in Scotland. Nobody can prove - and indeed I think it isn't even logical - that the minimum price legislation that the Scottish Government would like to see has been responsible for that. As regards the Canadian example, which is specifically mentioned in this statement, Canada is a very, very different market from Britain because virtually all liquor that is sold in Canada is state controlled or state regulated in a way it certainly isn't in this country. They don't have a minimum price system such as the one that is being proposed anyway. They have a reference price system that is different for different drinks, and different in different provinces of Canada. So, it's very, very difficult, from the Canadian evidence, insofar as it's undisputed, to draw any conclusions for the type of legislation that is now being proposed for here in Wales. There is another aspect that nobody else has mentioned so far this afternoon: Wales has a long border and a lot of people live quite close to it. Particularly in north-east Wales, Chester and Liverpool are right on the doorstep, what is the impact that this is going to have upon sellers of alcohol in areas like that? It would be very easy, especially now we can order online, to order from, say, Sainsbury's across the border in England and have it delivered in Wales. The minimum price legislation that is proposed here isn't going to apply to that. So, for a variety of reasons, which we'll follow up in more detail when this Bill comes to be debated in due course, there are flaws in the logic behind it that undermine its very purpose. What we should be looking at is how to take measures to combat the ill-effects upon society, and indeed upon individuals, of excessive alcohol consumption, but not to penalise the many in order to try and fail to help the few.
Welsh: Wel, yn wahanol i siaradwyr blaenorol i'r datganiad hwn, fel y bydd y Gweinidog wedi'i ragweld o fy nghwestiwn i'r Prif Weinidog yn gynharach, ni fydd fy mhlaid yn cefnogi'r mesur hwn. Nid yw hynny'n golygu nad ydym ni'n cefnogi'r nod, sef lleihau'r problemau sy'n deillio o yfed yn ormodol. Ond nid ydym ni o'r farn bod y mesur hwn yn debygol o gyflawni hynny, a hyd yn oed i'r graddau y mae yn gwneud hynny, effaith gwneud hynny fydd gorfodi costau annerbyniol ar y mwyafrif llethol o bobl sy'n yfed, fel fi, nad ydynt yn cael eu hystyried yn yfwyr â phroblem. Wel, efallai fod eraill yn fy ystyried i'n broblem, ond byddai hynny am resymau gwahanol, nid diod. A wnaiff hi gadarnhau'r ffigurau a ddyfynnir ar wefan y BBC ynghylch effaith y mesur hwn - ei fod, yn ôl fformiwla 50c, yn debygol o gynyddu pris can nodweddiadol o seidr i £1, potel o win i o leiaf £4.69, a litr o fodca nodweddiadol i fwy nag £20? Oherwydd, yn fy marn i, mae'n hollbwysig bod y cyhoedd yn sylweddoli yn awr, cyn i ni ddechrau trafod y mesur hwn yn iawn hyd yn oed, pa effaith debygol y mae'n debygol o'i chael. Mae'r Gweinidog yn dweud ei fod wedi'i anelu at yfwyr â phroblem, nid at y boblogaeth gyffredinol, ond dyma'r bobl y mae'r isafbris am alcohol yn lleiaf tebygol o'u heffeithio, nid y bobl sydd fwyaf tebygol o gael eu heffeithio. Rydym ni'n gwybod o ymchwil a wnaethpwyd bod y rhai a alwn yn yfwyr â phroblem yn sensitif o ran prisiau rhwng brandiau, felly os byddwch chi'n cynyddu pris un, byddan nhw'n newid i un arall, ond nid oes unrhyw dystiolaeth wirioneddol o gwbl dros ddangos y byddan nhw'n lleihau eu defnydd o alcohol yn gyffredinol, a llai fyth i ddod yn llwyrymwrthodwyr. Mae'r galw am elastigedd pris i yfwr â phroblem wirioneddol, bron yn ôl diffiniad yn sero. Ni fydd yn cael unrhyw effaith ar faint y mae'n yfed. Un o'r materion sy'n bwysig, wrth gwrs, yw goblygiadau yfed gormodol o ran trefn gyhoeddus, yn enwedig yng nghanol dinasoedd. Mae pob un ohonom yn gwybod am broblemau'r parthau rhyfel yng nghanol dinasoedd ar nosweithiau Gwener a Sadwrn. Felly, yr hyn sy'n bwysig, yn fwy nag yfed alcohol yn gyffredinol - gallwch beidio ag yfed am bum diwrnod yr wythnos a goryfed mewn pyliau ar y penwythnos. Gallwch chi gael diod ar ôl gwaith a sgwrsio'n hamddenol ac yna mynd adref am bum niwrnod yr wythnos ac wedyn penderfynu meddwi'n gaib ar y penwythnos. Nid yw'r mesur hwn yn debygol o gael unrhyw effaith, yn fy marn i, ar y rhai sy'n goryfed mewn pyliau, sydd yno at y diben penodol hwnnw. Maen nhw eisiau meddwi'n gaib, ac nid yw'r gwahaniaeth o ychydig bunnoedd yn debygol iawn o wneud unrhyw wahaniaeth i'w hymddygiad cymdeithasol. Mae'r Gweinidog wedi sôn am dystiolaeth ryngwladol o'r honiadau y mae wedi'u gwneud. Nid wyf i mewn gwirionedd yn ymwybodol o unrhyw dystiolaeth ryngwladol ac academaidd o'r broblem benodol hon o effaith isafbrisiau ar yfwyr â phroblem. Mae'n bwysig iawn peidio â gwneud camsyniad rhesymegol post hoc ergo propter hoc ac edrych ar yr ystadegau iechyd ar yr un llaw ac yna eu cymhwyso i fesurau deddfwriaethol a allai fod wedi digwydd fel pe na byddai unrhyw ffactorau eraill a allai fod wedi dylanwadu arnynt. Gwyddom, yn ystod y blynyddoedd diwethaf, fod y problemau a grëwyd gan alcohol wedi gostwng yn sylweddol. Mae hyn yn sicr yn wir yn yr Alban. Ni all neb brofi - ac yn wir, rwy'n credu nad yw hyd yn oed yn rhesymegol - mai'r ddeddfwriaeth isafbris yr hoffai Llywodraeth yr Alban ei gweld a fu'n gyfrifol am hynny. O ran enghraifft Canada, a grybwyllir yn benodol yn y datganiad hwn, mae Canada yn farchnad wahanol iawn, iawn i Brydain gan fod yr holl wirodydd, bron, a gaiff eu gwerthu yng Nghanada yn cael eu rheoli gan y wladwriaeth neu eu rheoleiddio gan y wladwriaeth mewn modd nad ydyw yn y wlad hon, yn sicr. Nid oes ganddynt system isafbris fel yr un sy'n cael ei chynnig beth bynnag. Mae ganddynt system brisiau cyfeirio sy'n wahanol i wahanol ddiodydd, ac yn wahanol mewn gwahanol daleithiau yng Nghanada. Felly, mae'n anodd iawn, iawn o dystiolaeth Canada, i'r graddau y mae'n ddiamheuol, tynnu unrhyw gasgliadau ar gyfer y math o ddeddfwriaeth sydd bellach yn cael ei chynnig yma yng Nghymru. Mae agwedd arall nad oes neb arall wedi'i chrybwyll hyd yn hyn y prynhawn yma: mae gan Gymru ffin hir ac mae llawer o bobl yn byw yn eithaf agos ati. Yn arbennig yn y gogledd-ddwyrain, mae Caer a Lerpwl ar garreg y drws, pa effaith y bydd hyn yn ei chael ar werthwyr alcohol mewn ardaloedd fel hyn? Byddai'n hawdd iawn, yn enwedig yn awr pan allwn archebu ar-lein, archebu, o Sainsbury's dyweder ar draws y ffin yn Lloegr a'i threfnu ei ddanfon yng Nghymru. Ni fydd y ddeddfwriaeth isafbrisiau a gynigir yma yn berthnasol i hynny. Felly, am amryw o resymau, y byddwn yn eu nodi'n fanylach pan gaiff y Bil hwn ei drafod maes o law, mae diffygion yn y rhesymeg y tu ôl iddo sy'n tanseilio ei union ddiben. Yr hyn y dylem ni fod yn ei ystyried yw sut i gymryd camau i fynd i'r afael ag effeithiau anffafriol yfed gormod o alcohol ar gymdeithas, ac yn wir ar unigolion, ond peidio â chosbi'r mwyafrif i geisio a methu â helpu'r lleiafrif.