English: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate today, and I'm going to focus particularly on alcohol. The report shows some positive changes that have happened over the last 12 months and areas where we certainly could be doing more to help prevent harm from substance misuse, particularly as the report states that the number of alcohol-related deaths rose by 7.1 per cent in 2017, compared to the previous year, and I think that that is a cause for concern. Alcohol is the most widely used substance cited in this report and, arguably, the most harmful on an individual, family, community and societal level. It causes harm through ill health, both physical and mental, it causes accidents, and it is the basis for much violent crime. But I was alarmed to learn recently that Drinkaware, an alcohol education charity that works with public health bodies to raise awareness about alcohol use and responsible drinking, is supported by donations from the drinks industry. Last year, the UK Government's adviser, Sir Ian Gilmore, resigned over Public Health England's decision to work with Drinkaware for their Drink Free Days campaign, and that campaign urged drinkers between the age of 45 and 65 to have regular days off drinking. He said, and I agree, that it was incompatible for a body that is putting out public health advice to be funded by the alcohol industry. And I have to say that I would go as far as to say that I think it's unethical. Of course people have the right to choose how much they drink, but I do believe that the alcohol education information that they receive should at least come from an independent source, particularly at a time when people already receive so much conflicting advice through social media and other sources. So, I did some very brief research this morning - it didn't take me long - and, on the Drinkaware website, it says, quite clearly, and I quote, that they're: 'funded largely by voluntary and unrestricted donations from UK alcohol producers, retailers and supermarkets.' I therefore have to ask if the Welsh Government thinks that working with those and taking any of their research seriously is a move that we ought to be taking, particularly in light of what I've just said. And I am aware that they did some research into social norming in relation to drinking practices among students in 2009-10 across universities in Wales, and that research was supposed to be published in 2012. Now, call me a sceptic, and I am in this case, but how are we supposed to rely on that evidence when that evidence is clearly being paid for, and bought, by those people who are actually selling alcohol? I hope, Minister, that we don't rely on evidence that is supported and funded by people who are promoting their industry at a huge cost to society.
Welsh: Croesawaf y cyfle i gyfrannu at y ddadl hon heddiw, ac rwy'n bwriadu canolbwyntio'n benodol ar alcohol. Dengys yr adroddiad fod rhai newidiadau cadarnhaol wedi digwydd dros y 12 mis diwethaf a bod yna feysydd lle gallwn yn sicr wneud mwy i helpu i atal niwed wrth gamddefnyddio sylweddau, yn enwedig gan fod yr adroddiad yn dweud bod nifer y marwolaethau sy'n gysylltiedig ag alcohol wedi codi 7.1 y cant yn 2017, o'i gymharu â'r flwyddyn flaenorol, a chredaf fod hynny'n achos o bryder. Mae'r adroddiad hwn yn nodi mai alcohol yw'r sylwedd sy'n cael ei ddefnyddio fwyaf a gellir dadlau hefyd, yr un sydd fwyaf niweidiol i'r unigolyn, i deulu, cymuned ac ar lefel gymdeithasol. Mae'n achosi niwed drwy salwch corfforol a meddyliol, mae'n achosi damweiniau, ac mae'n fan cychwyn ar gyfer llawer o droseddu treisgar. Ond roeddwn wedi dychryn o glywed yn ddiweddar fod Drinkaware, elusen addysgu alcohol sy'n gweithio â chyrff iechyd y cyhoedd i godi ymwybyddiaeth ynghylch defnyddio alcohol ac yfed cyfrifol, yn cael ei gefnogi drwy gyfraniadau gan y diwydiant diodydd. Y llynedd, ymddiswyddodd cynghorydd Llywodraeth y DU, Syr Ian Gilmore, o ganlyniad i benderfyniad Iechyd y Cyhoedd Lloegr i weithio gyda Drinkaware ar gyfer eu hymgyrch Diwrnod Heb Yfed. Roedd yr ymgyrch honno yn annog yfwyr rhwng 45 a 65 oed i gael dyddiau rheolaidd heb yfed alcohol. Dywedodd, a chytunaf ag ef, ei bod yn anghydnaws i gorff sy'n rhoi cyngor iechyd cyhoeddus gael ei ariannu gan y diwydiant alcohol. A rhaid imi ddweud y byddwn i'n mynd mor bell â dweud y credaf ei fod yn anfoesegol. Wrth gwrs mae gan bobl yr hawl i ddewis faint maen nhw'n dewis ei yfed, ond credaf y dylai'r wybodaeth addysg alcohol y maent yn ei dderbyn ddod o ffynhonnell annibynnol o leiaf, yn arbennig mewn cyfnod pan gaiff pobl cymaint o gyngor anghyson drwy'r cyfryngau cymdeithasol a ffynonellau eraill yn barod. Felly, fe wnes i waith ymchwil byr iawn y bore yma - ni chymerodd amser hir - ac, ar wefan Drinkaware, fe ddywed, yn bur amlwg, ac rwy'n dyfynnu, eu bod yn cael: eu hariannu i raddau helaeth gan roddion gwirfoddol a dilyffethair cynhyrchwyr alcohol y DU, manwerthwyr ac archfarchnadoedd. Felly rhaid imi ofyn a yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn credu bod gweithio gyda'r rheini a chymryd unrhyw ymchwil o'u heiddo o ddifrif yn gam y dylem fod yn ei gymryd, yn enwedig yng ngoleuni'r hyn yr wyf newydd ei ddweud. Rwy'n ymwybodol eu bod wedi gwneud gwaith ymchwil i batrymau cymdeithasol mewn cysylltiad ag arferion yfed ymhlith myfyrwyr yn 2009-10 ar draws prifysgolion yng Nghymru, a bod yr ymchwil honno i fod i gael ei chyhoeddi yn 2012. Yn awr, gallwch fy ngalw i'n sgeptig, ac mae hynny'n wir yn yr achos hwn, ond sut ydym ni i fod i ddibynnu ar y dystiolaeth honno pan fo cost y dystiolaeth honno'n amlwg yn cael ei thalu a'i phrynu gan y bobl hynny sydd mewn gwirionedd yn gwerthu alcohol? Gobeithio, Gweinidog, nad ydym yn dibynnu ar dystiolaeth a gefnogir ac a ariennir gan bobl sy'n hyrwyddo eu diwydiant ar gost enfawr i gymdeithas.