Well, I think there are differentiations between them. I think there was a very specific circumstance here, because the actual minimum price being on the face of the Bill, which I think is the issue that you're raising, goes to the actual root of how effective the legislation actually is in itself, and that, in the absence of that, will determine how this Assembly might wish to consider what that level is and what the impact would be on the actual consumption of alcohol, and all the things that the legislation wishes to actually deal with. 

We think an alternative with regard to the illustrative examples, though, would be to use the guidance and update it as required. This would ensure a consistent approach between actual minimum unit price and the figure used in illustrative examples. So, our recommendation 5 asked the Cabinet Secretary to address our concerns in this debate. I understand the points that the Cabinet Secretary has made, so I'm really outlining the concerns as they were expressed in the committee, and we look forward to consideration of your written responses.

Finally, we've recorded our agreement with the use of a sunset clause, as set out in section 22. We've noted the regulations under section 22(3) may make provision 'as may be necessary or expedient' and the Cabinet Secretary will be familiar with these issues, in being raised consistently by this committee: if the Bill was to be repealed, in our view the power to make 'necessary' changes would be sufficient. Consequently, our recommendation 6 requests the Cabinet Secretary to table an amendment to the Bill to delete the words 'or expedient' from section 22(3). Thank you, Llywydd.