English: Well, that's not the question. The question is amongst those who are really addicted: addicts. We don't know, of course, what the minimum price is going to be. Of course, if you increase the minimum price of alcohol by £5 rather than 50p, it would have a dramatic effect, but until we know what the minimum unit price is going to be, we can only talk in general terms. But what we can say, I think, with reasonable confidence is that the people who are least likely to change their behaviour as a result of a moderate increase in price are those who are most dependent upon alcohol. They will actually spend less on other things in order to feed their addiction. That is the nature of addiction, I would have thought. There's been a study done of British Columbia, which did introduce minimum pricing, which has been cited as a justification for this Bill, but, actually, that also suffers from all sorts of methodological flaws. For one thing, the sale of liquor in British Columbia is entirely a state monopoly, and that's very different from the situation in this country. A fall in crime was attributed in British Columbia to the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol without, of course, saying that similar falls in crime were experienced everywhere else in Canada that didn't have a minimum price for alcohol. Indeed, these are global trends as well. We've seen a dramatic reduction, actually, in levels of alcohol consumption generally in this country in recent years - a 12 per cent fall between 2004 and 2011. So, disentangling all these different effects from a single cause is almost impossible to achieve. So, I think we should argue about this in general terms, rather than trying to introduce some kind of bogus mathematical exactitude that is likely to shore up or undermine the prejudices with which we come to the debate. We know that in some countries there are much higher levels of alcohol consumption than in this country, and yet they have fewer problems of excessive drinking. France is one of them, which was referred to in the health committee's report in paragraph 73. In paragraph 75 in this report as well, it states that in the United Kingdom alcohol consumption has gone down in recent years, but there's been no parallel decline in alcohol-related harm. So, these two things are not necessarily connected. If this is going to be a targeted measure, it has to target the people who are the problem, not the overwhelming majority of people who drink alcohol who are no problem to anybody at all, even to themselves. There will be ill effects that the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol will have on the poor and those who are on the lowest incomes, as many people have pointed out in the course of this debate. The champagne drinkers are not going to be affected by this measure, but those who go and buy a few cans of lager at Aldi or Lidl or wherever will be affected, and I think it is an unfair measure that cannot be anything other than regressive. I'd like to draw attention also to paragraph 178 of the health committee's report about the likely impact upon the homeless and those who are problem drinkers who live on the streets, and what is likely to happen to those. That shows that, in fact, their problems could actually be made worse as a result of measures of this kind. I haven't the time to go into the detail of it now, but we'll have plenty of time in the course of this Bill's process through to explore these things in detail. I certainly think that the point that has come out of almost everybody's speech today is that we need to have an evidence base to any decision that is ultimately made.
Welsh: Wel, nid dyna'r cwestiwn. Mae'r cwestiwn ynghylch y rhai sy'n wirioneddol gaeth: adictiaid. Nid ydym yn gwybod, wrth gwrs, beth fydd yr isafbris. Wrth gwrs, pe byddech yn ychwanegu £5 at isafbris alcohol yn hytrach na 50c, fe fyddai'n cael effaith sylweddol, ond hyd nes y gwyddom beth fydd isafbris uned, ni allwn ond siarad mewn termau cyffredinol. Ond yr hyn y gallwn ei ddweud, rwy'n credu, yn weddol ffyddiog yw mai'r bobl sydd leiaf tebygol o newid eu hymddygiad o ganlyniad i gynnydd cymedrol yn y pris yw'r rhai sydd fwyaf dibynnol ar alcohol. Mewn gwirionedd, byddan nhw'n gwario llai ar bethau eraill er mwyn bwydo eu dibyniaeth. Rwy'n credu mai dyna yw natur y ddibyniaeth. Gwnaethpwyd astudiaeth o British Columbia, a wnaeth gyflwyno isafbris, ac fe nodwyd hyn fel cyfiawnhad dros y Bil hwn, ond, mewn gwirionedd, mae hynny hefyd yn dioddef o bob math o ddiffygion methodolegol. Yn un peth, mae gwerthiant diod feddwol yn British Columbia yn fonopoli llwyr i'r wladwriaeth ac mae hynny'n wahanol iawn i'r sefyllfa yn y wlad hon. Priodolwyd y gostyngiad mewn troseddu yn British Columbia i'r isafbris ar gyfer alcohol a gyflwynwyd heb, wrth gwrs, nodi y gwelwyd gostyngiadau tebyg mewn troseddu ym mhobman arall yng Nghanada lle nad oedd isafbris ar gyfer alcohol. Yn wir, ceir tueddiadau fel hyn ar draws y byd hefyd. Rydym wedi gweld gostyngiad sylweddol, mewn gwirionedd, yn lefelau yfed alcohol yn gyffredinol yn y wlad hon yn y blynyddoedd diwethaf - gostyngiad o 12 y cant rhwng 2004 a 2011. Felly, mae gwahanu'r holl effeithiau gwahanol hyn o un achos unigol bron yn amhosibl ei gyflawni. Felly, rwy'n credu y dylem ddadlau am hyn mewn termau cyffredinol, yn hytrach na cheisio cyflwyno rhyw fath o fanyldeb fathemategol ffug sy'n debygol o gynnal neu danseilio'r rhagfarnau y deuwn gyda ni i'r ddadl. Gwyddom fod lefelau yfed alcohol mewn rhai gwledydd yn llawer uwch nag yn y wlad hon, ac eto mae ganddyn nhw lai o broblemau goryfed. Un ohonynt yw Ffrainc y cyfeiriwyd ati yn adroddiad y Pwyllgor Iechyd ym mharagraff 73. Ym mharagraff 75 yn yr adroddiad hwn hefyd, dywedir bod y defnydd o alcohol yn y Deyrnas Unedig wedi gostwng yn y blynyddoedd diwethaf, ond na fu gostyngiad cyfochrog yn y niwed sy'n gysylltiedig ag alcohol. Felly, nid yw'r ddau beth hyn o reidrwydd yn gysylltiedig â'i gilydd. Os yw hwn yn mynd i fod yn fesur wedi'i dargedu, mae'n rhaid iddo dargedu'r bobl sy'n creu'r broblem, nid y mwyafrif llethol o bobl sy'n yfed alcohol nad ydynt yn broblem o gwbl i neb, hyd yn oed i'w hunain. Bydd cyflwyno isafbris ar gyfer alcohol yn effeithio'n wael ar y rhai tlawd a'r rhai sydd ar yr incwm isaf, fel y nodwyd gan lawer o bobl yn ystod y ddadl hon. Ni fydd y mesur hwn yn effeithio ar yfwyr siampên, ond bydd yn effeithio ar y rhai sy'n mynd i brynu ychydig o ganiau o lager yn Aldi neu Lidl neu ble bynnag, ac rwy'n credu ei fod yn fesur annheg na all fod yn unrhyw beth ond mesur atchweliadol. Hoffwn dynnu sylw hefyd at baragraff 178 o adroddiad y pwyllgor iechyd am yr effaith debygol ar y digartref a'r rhai sydd â phroblem yfed sy'n byw ar y stryd, a'r hyn sy'n debygol o ddigwydd i'r rheini. Mae hynny'n dangos, mewn gwirionedd, y gall mesurau o'r fath greu problemau gwaeth iddynt. Does gen i ddim amser i fanylu ar hyn nawr, ond bydd gennym ddigon o amser yn ystod taith proses y Bil hwn i archwilio'r pethau hyn yn fanwl. Yn sicr, credaf mai'r pwynt sydd wedi codi yn araith bron pawb heddiw yw bod angen inni gael sail dystiolaeth i unrhyw benderfyniad a wneir yn y pen draw.