Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to thank Members for a constructive and considered debate on tackling substance misuse. As was noted both in my opening remarks and by most Members who spoke, this is an ever-changing landscape, which makes our work very challenging. As Jenny Rathbone said, this is a complex and difficult problem, so there isn’t a simple answer that is glaringly obvious and staring us in the face. There’s something about understanding the nature of the challenge we face and the scale of it as well, and in my remarks I’ll try to respond to some of the points that each speaker made, but forgive me if I don’t get round to dealing with all of the points that every single person made.

I’ll start with Mark Isherwood and the point about inpatient services, tier 4 services, and in particular points about tier 4 services and detox as well. There was a particular view of history that Mark set out as to where we have been and where we are. On some of the comments made about the range of treatments at Brynawel—in particular David Rowlands mentioned that—I’m happy to say that Brynawel is not just for people in my colleague the Member for Ogmore’s constituency, but serves people in a wide area of places. The outlook for Brynawel has improved, and it has come about because there’s been real engagement between Brynawel and the Welsh Government, both in funding the alcohol-related brain damage pilot—there’s more to be done on that—but also in conversations not just around the framework for tier 4 services, but actually the practical relationship between commissioners and Brynawel as the service provider, understanding the range of services Brynawel can offer, and that commissioners can place there as well. I think there is, at last, a growing understanding of the services that are potentially available. As I say, on the inpatient detoxification front, I think there is more work to be done on understanding where is the most appropriate place for somebody to receive that service, because some people currently receive that service in a hospital setting, and that may not be the right place for them.

I’ll try to deal with the substantive points made by both Dai Lloyd and Leanne Wood, not just about the numbers of drug and alcohol-related deaths, but also the potential for some of the solutions. Actually, on some of this, we don’t disagree. The police and crime commissioners, for example, all unanimously agree that policing should be devolved, but it’s a matter of when, not if, from their point of view. We don’t fully share the view that Leanne Wood expressed. I’m not about to try and change Welsh Government policy on the future of devolution and all those areas of powers. But there is still something in our understanding of how we balance what we’re able to do and then to judge the value of that. I mentioned the role of naloxone and the fact that the kits have been used on more than 1,600 occasions. That, I think, does show that where that overdose has taken place and it has been deployed, you can honestly say that person was unlikely to have been there had that not happened.

So, there is something about understanding the effectiveness of what we are already doing, but also the scale of the challenge that we face. There’s a difficult debate for us to have, but an honest one to be had, to be taken seriously, as it is a really serious issue, about supervised injection or ingestion facilities. I think this is really difficult, largely because of the current law that exists in England and Wales. There is disagreement between police and crime commissioners, but chief constables themselves all have a real degree of caution about this in Wales. There’s something here about understanding the law and how it’s enforced, and to have a safe injecting area you’d need to actually have an agreement with the police about how they would and would not enforce the law, and that’s difficult. You’d be asking those police forces not to enforce the law around that area.

In particular, there's the challenge that then exists with the community as well—because all and any of us who have facilities in our constituency, whether they’re needle exchanges or other services, know that there’s almost always a large degree of suspicion. Also, people see the damage that drugs do, not just to individuals and their families, but to a wider community. And there's an understanding that wherever any treatment place is likely to be, you’re likely to have a community campaign, partly driven by fear, indifference, and frankly some of the less charitable elements of the human character, as well as people who are rather more concerned about whether that will become a magnet for the selling of drugs as well. So, there's an understanding about those parts, but also I'm genuinely concerned about the future of healthcare professionals, because if we ask them to supervise what is currently an unlawful activity, then I think there's a risk about their own future registration. I think there is a proper debate to be had and a review of evidence.

I hope it's helpful for those who are advocates of this as a solution that, for all of my concerns and caution about where we are now, the expert review group that advises the Welsh Government is looking at evidence, not just internationally, to build on heath board trips to the areas that Leanne Wood has mentioned, but also Denmark as well, and looking at the current evidence around what may or may not be happening in Durham, to give us further advice on the effectiveness of what is provided, but also what we can do here in Wales as well. As I say, this is a serious debate to be taken seriously, because potentially there is a way, if we can find it, to save even more lives. 

Dealing with some of the points John Griffiths raised about capital use and appropriate facilities, there's been real concern between myself and the then Minister for public health, as she then was, on the way in which capital is used, but also the return that we find on that and the security of the public investment we make in facilities, to make sure that they continue to be available for that purpose as well. We've had some concerns about the way that we haven't been properly protected in the past, but I think we're in a better place now to make sure that capital is wisely invested.

I recognise the points that both you and Jenny Rathbone made about parenting and role-model behaviour on a range of fronts. What is actually encouraging between the points yourself and Jenny Rathbone made is that, on alcohol at least, we are seeing lower rates of alcohol misuse by younger people. There is still a hardened element to that, but, overall, young people are more likely not to drink or not to drink to excess. I think there is something about the understanding of why we're taking forward minimum unit pricing, because that is part of our approach. But we should not pretend that that in itself resolves all ills, because it won't. There really is something about the education and the knowledge that we equip people with to make their choices, and that gives me some encouragement about the as yet unresolved issues around substance misuse in its broader sense, and in drug use, and in particular the points that Caroline Jones made about and cannabinoid use and new psychoactive substances.

There is a lack of knowledge and understanding about the dangers that those substances present to users and people around them, and it's for us to try and find a way through that to try and equip people to again make those wiser and more informed choices. Because that lies at the heart of our approach—how we equip people to make choices and how we maintain the harm-reduction approach that we have. I hope that Members will support the motion and either support the Government in its amendments or, in any event, support the final motion before us at the end of today's business.