Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to Members who have contributed to today's debate on the general principles of the Bill. There have long been calls for Wales to change its relationship with alcohol across political parties, and I expect this Bill to make a real and material contribution to reducing hazardous and harmful drinking and, ultimately, to save lives.

I want to thank Members from a variety of different parties—the Conservative group, the Plaid Cymru group and, indeed, the health committee—for indicating their support for the Bill today, and I recognise that there's more to do as we move into Stage 2 to see some of the details, some of the points, and of course the written response of the Government to the recommendations that I've indicated.

I do want to try and outline and deal with some of the issues raised in the debate, and in particular some of the points made in Dai Lloyd's contribution, but also in Vikki Howells's and I believe at least in part in Angela Burns's contribution as well, and this is the point about the end point at which we have more evidence. That's why we recognise that this is an innovative approach to public health legislation. It's based on modelling that helped Scotland to take this step forward as well for their own minimum unit price Bill, and they've used a range of statistical evidence to model the potential impact of this, and I think that's an entirely reasonable basis on which to proceed, and I do have confidence in their modelled evidence. But we recognise that it is innovative and we want to understand the impacts of it. That's why, in the Government's Bill, we've proposed a sunset clause. We propose that we must have an evaluation at the end of that five-year period to understand the impact of minimum unit pricing if the Government then asks the Assembly to agree that a minimum unit pricing regime should continue into the future. So, there's something here about whether we are prepared to take this step to have this regime introduced, but, in any event, even if we do—and I hope we do—we will get to a point where we'll have an evaluation of the real impact here in Wales in our context.

I recognise some of the comments made by both the health committee and, indeed, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee about what should and shouldn't be on the face of the Bill. I'll think again about some of the comments made about what should be on the face of the Bill and in particular about the evaluation. I think I want to take some care though that trying to prescribe on the face of the Bill matters that must be in the evaluation at this point in time as opposed to running through what should be in the evaluation in more than five years' time after that experience of the Bill in practice—I'd be nervous about prescribing a range of matters on the face of the Bill at this point. But I think I would be able to give some confidence to Members about the approach that the Government would take on what to include in any evaluation to make sure it's real and meaningful for Members who will then be asked—potentially asked—to continue with a minimum unit pricing regime. That's something we will need to discuss through Stage 2 and, I hope, beyond.

I recognise some of the technical points made by CLAC. I'm thinking about the point about named officers. I'll reflect on that and particularly the analogous provisions that you reference from PACE. I still don't agree that the minimum unit price should be on the face of the Bill. There again there's a disagreement between the constitution committee and indeed the health committee, as well, on that point, and I tried to address that in my opening remarks. But, with respect, I don't accept that having the price on the face of the Bill will help to determine its success. There's more to it than that.

On UKIP, we have a straightforward disagreement that I don't think there's much point in spending much time on outlining again today. We understand that we disagree. On the point about responsible legislation, Angela, again, I recognise the point that you're making, particularly the points made by you and others on substitution. That's why I've asked the advisory panel on substance misuse to undertake an evidence review in this area and to publish that as well, so Members will see that as we proceed through Stage 2, and that should be within a matter of weeks, not months, for Members to see.

I think there's something here in some of the contributions about both the principle of setting a minimum unit price, but then what the level should be and then to understand the impact of that upon moderate drinkers as well. Again, there's more for us to do, as the Bill proceeds, on how that can happen, on the evidence that is available from the modelling and the store that Members should set by that when being asked to actually approve this piece of legislation.

I recognise the points that Rhun made about the potential lifesaving impact of this legislation and, again, the points made both by Vikki Howells and John Griffiths too. I've indicated that we will look to have more money going into front-line services. We want more people to engage in front-line services to help them with alcohol and other substance misuse challenges. We'll always have to think about the level of need coming into those services and making sure that they are well managed, but also properly funded. 

With respect, I do disagree that taxation is the answer. This is part of what went through the court cases, where the alcohol industry said taxation should be the answer. The problem is that retailers can get around taxes and they do at present; they avoid the impact taxation should have on the price that is paid and they run alcohol as loss leaders. A minimum unit price sets a floor below which you cannot proceed, and that is where you ensure that there has to be a minimum unit price, otherwise we'd simply be left with a situation where we wouldn't have moved much beyond where we are today.

But I do recognise what Vikki Howells said about the scale of our challenge and our relationship with alcohol. This Bill is supposed to be part of the answer, but not a silver bullet. It does not replace the need for further education and understanding of the choice that we make as citizens, but it is part of our wide range of approaches to try and have real gain for every community across Wales and a different relationship with alcohol, and I hope that Members will support this Bill here today.