I thank you very, very much for those questions and for outlining the support for the aims and the principles of the Bill. I think that we all reflect on the previous public health Bill and the important role that scrutiny played in that, and certainly in strengthening the Bill and in testing the Bill, and I think that we can look forward to similarly robust scrutiny as this Bill makes its way through the Assembly as well.

In terms of the ‘why now?’ question, that’s an excellent question, and actually, in an ideal world it wouldn’t be now, but unfortunately the powers that we have in this area are powers that will be removed from Welsh Government when the Wales Act 2017 comes into force in April of next year, so we need to have cleared Stage 1 within the Assembly in April of next year. So, that’s why we’re taking this particular moment to introduce the Bill. I would have much preferred to have waited until the outcome of the Scottish court case had come to a resolution, and I had hoped it would have been before now. I do understand it will be fairly imminent, and, obviously, when that judgment is made, we’ll have to consider what implications that does have for our Bill. But it is very much a situation of having a very small window in which to act at the moment, so we’re taking this window while we can.

I completely agree with you as well that the minimum unit pricing can only be one part in a much wider jigsaw in terms of tackling substance misuse in the round and particularly supporting people with an alcohol dependency and preventing people from having that dependency in the first place. So, there are a range of ways in which we’re already trying to tackle alcohol consumption and harmful and hazardous drinking, particularly across Wales, and those were set out in our ‘Working Together to Reduce Harm’ substance misuse delivery plan 2016-18, which was published in the Assembly in September of 2016. Examples of some of the actions in that include working to tackle the excessive consumption of alcohol through better education, through prevention, and of course through those treatment services to support the most harmful drinkers, as well as support, of course, for the families of people who misuse alcohol. That has been recognised as one of the significant adverse childhood experiences, which is something that all Ministers have a real concern about as well.

You also referred, quite rightly, to the issue of unintended consequences, and I really do recognise the concerns that you and others have raised that there are some vulnerable groups who might continue to purchase the same amounts of alcohol despite the increase in price. For example, in terms of household spend on areas such as food or heating—making those choices as well. So, I’m very aware of that potential issue and we’re already looking with our area planning boards on how we can ensure that local services are as responsive as possible to vulnerable groups’ needs in this respect.

It’s also important to recognise that, overall, we do expect to see reduced levels of consumption amongst harmful and hazardous drinkers, and associated reductions in alcohol-related harms. However, it is important to make sure that those services are there, which is one of the reasons that we do invest £50 million in our substance-misuse agenda to try and ensure that the support is there for people who need it. I also noted some of the other concerns raised by stakeholders about unintended consequences. For example, families might, as I say, be forced to make those difficult choices as well, but as you suggested and others have suggested here today, individuals might switch to other substances. We think the risk that consumers could switch to illegal drugs or new psychoactive substances, for example, is considered low, as an illegal or untested substance is clearly qualitatively a big step and very different to the consumption of alcohol, and most people wouldn’t consider that to be a valid substitute. However, it is something that we intend to explore further with the Welsh Government’s advisory panel on substance misuse. They’ve previously commented that they don’t believe that this is likely to be an issue. However, it’s something that we’re very much alive to as well.

In terms of referring to this as a tax, we are very clear that this isn’t a tax. It’s very much a minimum unit price. The evidence suggests that higher taxation alone wouldn’t be as effective as a minimum unit price. In fact, you’d have to reduce taxation by a large amount to achieve the same kind of benefits to health and the NHS that we would expect to see from a minimum unit price alone. That’s one of the reasons why it’s important to look at this very much as a minimum unit price. It does allow us to target those high-strength very cheap alcohol products rather than taking a blanket approach and raising the price of all alcohol as well.

An interesting note to this is that the 2014 modelling suggests that high drinkers purchase more of their alcohol below an example minimum unit price of 50p at the moment. These are people at all income levels. High-risk drinkers in poverty buy 42 per cent of their alcohol below the 50p per unit, as compared to 21 per cent for moderate drinkers in poverty. High-risk drinkers not in poverty buy 28 per cent of units below 50p, compared to 14 per cent of moderate drinkers not in poverty. So, the minimum unit price would change the price of approximately a fifth of the alcohol purchased by moderate drinkers in poverty, whereas an increase in taxation would affect the price of all drinks purchased by people living in lower income households.