English: I think it's important to state that we in UKIP do acknowledge that there are individuals who do abuse alcohol, and alcohol abuse can - [ Interruption.] Alcohol abuse can have a devastating effect both on individuals and on their families. It is not that we aren't concerned by this issue. We are. We are simply questioning whether minimum unit pricing, or MUP, will work as a means of effectively combatting alcohol abuse. Our considered conclusion is that is won't. Now, we know that the Welsh Government doesn't simply do things without research. Yes, they have their research. They have sourced research from the University of Sheffield, for instance, which estimates that a minimum unit price of 50p a unit would save the Welsh economy £882 million over a 20-year period. That works out at about £40 million a year, which sounds like an appreciable saving. This is due to reductions in the fields of crime, illness and workplace absence. The problem is that the methodology behind this report has been criticised by other academics and think tanks. For instance, the Centre for Economics and Business Research have come up with an alternative appraisal of the MUP plan, which includes a critique of Sheffield university's work, particularly focusing on alcohol demand elasticity - that is, the willingness of problem drinkers to pay more money to get their fix of alcohol. The CEBR felt that the Sheffield study didn't properly distinguish between different types of drinker and different types of drinking behaviours. In other words, it didn't take enough account of the readiness of problem drinkers to pay more money to get their fix, or that problem drinkers tend to exhibit behaviours that are different to average behaviour. We have to accept that we are dealing here with people who have an addiction, people who have an illness, so they will not always act in rational ways. Addicts will often tend to carry on getting hold of the substance that they are addicted to, even if the price goes up.
Welsh: Mae'n bwysig nodi ein bod ni yn UKIP yn cydnabod bod yna unigolion sy'n cam-drin alcohol, a gall camddefnyddio alcohol - [ Torri ar draws.] Gall cam-drin alcohol effeithio'n ddinistriol ar unigolion ac ar eu teuluoedd. Mae'r mater hwn yn peri pryder i ni. Ond rydym yn cwestiynu a fydd gosod isafbris fesul uned yn gweithio fel ffordd o drechu'r camddefnydd o alcohol i bob pwrpas. Ein casgliad ystyriol yw na fydd yn gwneud hynny. Nawr, fe wyddom nad yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn gwneud pethau heb ymchwil. Oes, mae ganddynt eu hymchwil. Maent wedi cael ymchwil gan Brifysgol Sheffield, er enghraifft, sy'n amcangyfrif y byddai isafbris o 50c yr uned yn arbed £882 miliwn i economi Cymru dros gyfnod o 20 mlynedd. Mae hynny'n golygu tua £40 miliwn y flwyddyn, sy'n swnio fel arbediad sylweddol. Deillia hyn o leihad mewn troseddu, salwch ac absenoldeb o'r gweithle. Y broblem yw bod y fethodoleg sy'n sail i'r adroddiad hwn wedi ei beirniadu gan academyddion a melinau trafod eraill. Er enghraifft, mae'r Ganolfan Ymchwil Economeg a Busnes wedi llunio arfarniad amgen o'r cynllun isafbris uned, sy'n cynnwys beirniadaeth o waith prifysgol Sheffield, gan ganolbwyntio'n arbennig ar hyblygrwydd y galw am alcohol - hynny yw, parodrwydd pobl sydd â phroblem yfed i dalu mwy o arian i gael eu dos o alcohol. Teimlai'r Ganolfan Ymchwil Economeg a Busnes nad oedd astudiaeth Sheffield yn gwahaniaethu'n briodol rhwng gwahanol fathau o yfwyr a gwahanol fathau o ymddygiad yfed. Mewn geiriau eraill, ni roddodd ddigon o sylw i barodrwydd pobl sydd â phroblem yfed i dalu mwy o arian i gael eu dos, neu fod pobl sydd â phroblem yfed yn tueddu i arddangos patrymau ymddygiad sy'n wahanol i'r ymddygiad cyffredin. Rhaid inni dderbyn ein bod yn ymdrin yma â phobl sy'n gaeth, pobl sydd â salwch, felly ni fyddant bob amser yn gweithredu mewn ffordd resymegol. Yn aml, bydd pobl sy'n gaeth yn tueddu i barhau i gael gafael ar y sylweddau y maent yn gaeth iddynt, hyd yn oed os yw'r pris yn codi.