Thank you. I have just two brief points.
First, to follow up on the comment that Mr. Griffin just made, if it's in fact the case that it would not usually be the kind of situation for which you would send someone to prison--for, say, a minor trafficking offence--then it seems to me there's little harm in accepting our recommendation that you might exempt those kinds of offences from this legislation, to remove the option of conditional sentencing. Why create an incentive in a system that is driving toward sending people to prison? Even if they're just trafficking small quantities, many of those people would be doing it to support an addiction. If, as my colleague here is saying, that's not necessarily how the courts want to see it anyway, why resist the notion of exempting drug offences, or at least some of them, from this legislation?
The second point is on cost. We must think responsibly about the cost of incarcerating people with addictions, given the very little return, especially from the perspective of health, that comes from that. That any money is actually spent on incarcerating people who might otherwise actually be able to serve time in the community and benefit from treatment programs were they better funded is, I think, a misuse of funds. We would actually get more return for the individual, and for the community order as a whole, if we were to actually take those funds and spend them not on more prisons for people who have addictions but actually on treatment, which is inaccessible for many people with addictions in this country.