Thank you. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this statement on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives group. I'm grateful to have received advanced view of the statement, and I know that my colleague Angela Burns AM was grateful for the technical briefing that you arranged recently. 

Can I start by welcoming the statement? It is an essential Bill and it is important that it has been brought before us today, ahead of a busy couple of weeks, to get the Bill enshrined in law before the new financial year in April. GPs have been crying out for this legislation to be brought forward, and it is essential that Wales is on a similar footing to England to enable us here in Wales to compete on a level playing field when it comes to recruiting and retaining GPs. I would, however, like to pick out a couple of areas of concern that we have and to seek some clarification on a few issues. 

Minister, the statement claims that the implementation of this Bill will cost around £30,000. I would like to understand more about how this figure has been reached and what assurances can be provided that this budget will not be exceeded. Can you provide this reassurance?

Minister, you mention a post-implementation review will be carried out, but this is not detailed in the Bill. This was a political objective for your Government, as set out in the Executive memorandum. At the moment, there does not appear to be any reporting or review function in front of the Assembly, which means the policy objective of monitoring of the operation of the scheme is not set in stone. Can you clarify why this review is not included in this Bill?

Minister, I'm also interested in why you are using negative procedure, given that countless committees have recommended affirmative regulation-making powers. It raises questions about the ability that this Assembly has to scrutinise the Welsh Government proposals effectively. 

My colleague Angela Burns commented during the progression of the minimum price for alcohol Bill that the use of negative procedure could lead to a future Assembly judging you harshly if you do not collect credible, consistent, outcome-focused evidence that would enable proper scrutiny and sound judgment. Can you therefore explain why you have opted to follow the negative procedure route?

And, finally, I do have a concern over the timetabling of this Bill. We do seem to be rushing things. And whilst I accept the urgency to have this Bill receive Royal Assent, to have such a short time frame for evidence to be produced and scrutinised is in fact a worry. Can I receive reassurances that this process will allow a decent amount of time to enable a full and transparent scrutiny process? And why wasn't it brought forward earlier to avoid what is now an unseemly rush? Thank you.