 Brother has been one of those issues where all the decisions are taken by people who know very little about them. This is not new in politics, but it can sometimes create a lot of problems in the more technical dossier. It's a bit like nuclear energy. You can't live without it and you don't really want to live with it, and drugs is a very similar thing. The European Commission and the European Union institutions have been looking at drugs iawn? It goes back much longer than people think. It goes back to the 1990s. There was a drugs unit in the commission then. The European monitoring centre for drug and drug addiction was set up at that time because the European Commission and the EU in general realised that precisely it was a subject that we didn't know enough about and we needed to do the tobiwyd, llawer i fod y llefydau nhw, ac wrth gwrs. Ieithaf, oes bwysigogau cyfnodau i mi, sef rwyf yn dda i. Those noth a newydd o'r ddechrau. There is an EU instrument that deals with that, which is the council decision on the very ynghylch, ymdryg, ysgrifennidau, ystyriedau yn gyffredig, ac ymdryg, ac yn gweithio, ymdryg, ac rhai wrth gael arwain, yw'r hyn sydd i'w cymryd. Yr Ysgrifennidau, 2005, 387JHA, ymdrygiadau a'r Ffarr. Mae'r ddefnyddio'r drwyf yn y ffridd, ac yn y ffridd, yw'r ffridd, yw'r Ffarr, yw'r Ffarr, yw'r Amserdam, yw'r Amserdam Tridio, pre-lisman, when the EU began to deal with crime, with police matters, with judicial matters. So we have this council decision at the moment and in 2010 it was up for a reassessment. So the commission did the reassessment and came up with a number of conclusions, what was wrong with it, what it wasn't doing as well as we were hoping. One problem with the council decision is that it has a one by one approach. In other words, you can only, the commission or member states can say, well, here is, for instance, methadrone, let's assess methadrone and see if we place it under control. Now that takes one year, which clearly is a heavy system, only one substance at a time, and it takes too long. It's a reactive instrument, new psychoactive substances. You can start the assessment and then halfway through you find that the substance changes because they change one component of it and you have to start it over again. So that doesn't really help. It's an on and off instrument. You start the procedure and then you go all the way or you don't start and you do nothing. So here again, it's not very flexible. The last thing we found out after Lisbon, we needed to change the legal basis, which was a bit difficult. I believe that the European Parliament is now challenging one of the findings of the council on 4MA, I believe, one of the substances because the council and the parliament quite rightly says that the commission should clean up the legal basis of this instrument. So the commission is now working on a successor instrument, a new proposal. How is it doing this? It's not thinking this up on its own. It's meeting with experts on the new psychoactive substances, user organisations, policymakers, stakeholders, the European Forum on Drugs in town at the moment. The commission is looking at a number of key issues. One of them is how to improve the actual risk assessment phase of this to make it both more flexible and lighter. It's important to maintain the evidence base of this approach because one of the risks, one of the risk, political risks of controlling new psychoactive substances is that you may do it simply because it's politically expedient or that there is a lot of pressure in the media to do it, but that is not a good reason. Another thing the new instrument we'll be looking at is how to adapt EU decision making on this to the diversity that exists between member states on particular substances and the way the law deals with them. We also need to look at which substances need to be dealt with at EU level. We're dealing with things at EU level, however you do it, it's quite expensive, it takes a long time, so if you have one substance which is only a problem in one country, it's probably not worth doing it dealing with it at a European level. We also need to be able to speed up the process when a substance turns out or it's thought to be particularly risky. On the other hand, we have to avoid criminalisation of users, some users of these substances are using them and don't even know that they are illegal. That is another thing that needs to be looked at. What we're trying to do is find a middle ground also between, as I said, between the on or off system that we have at the moment, between doing nothing or going right for criminal law control justices. Finally, an important point is to avoid restrictions on some substances which are perfectly legitimate, which are used in the industry, the paint industry or something, but which, back into another way, are sold as legalised or news side factor substances. So, if you start banning them with criminal law orders, you're creating a lot of problems for industry, the market and so on. The proposal that's going through this system at the moment is also looks at the ways of building in gradations of intervention. You don't always need the heavy hand of the state or of Europe, which is banned wonderful substance depending on whether it's risky or not. It is looking at health protection, if you like, consumer protection, because people will consume these things. As I said, some of them are legal. If I want to make pills out of some paint I have in my house to paint the wall, nobody can stop me, but I do need some consumer protection. So, what about the purely criminal aspects very quickly? There is a school of thought that says whoever is selling this stuff is basically a criminal. I don't really believe that. I think particularly in Western Europe a lot of sellers are just people who are trying to, as they say, explore the boundaries of legality. We all do that at some stage and almost every day if you're driving a car or something. We're not necessarily dealing with organised crime here. There is organised crime. You know that. I believe that their involvement for the moment is still relatively limited. We know that some of this stuff is being made in China. Organised crime is mainly involved in the sort of repackaging, reselling, and the logistics of it. But a lot of the problems are local for the moment. We've identified, I believe, about 250 substances, something like that. As far as I know, about 15 are a bit of a problem of selling well, a bit of a real problem in some countries, because they've been used not as something, as a recreational drug, but they have, I believe, in Romania in some countries. They are being used as injecting drugs. They are replacing other drugs and that obviously is a completely separate issue. Very important, Europe has, the EU, has, I think always, since the 1990s, had the balanced approach and the evidence base as its two cornerstones of policy. Without that, we're lost. I think if we let go of that, you get what I would call American situations. I think that it's very important that we stick with that. As I've already said, it's important not to be spooked by the media or by, I'm not saying you're present by politicians, or by commissioners, who can get votes or get attention by being tough on drugs. We've got to abandon this, we've got to abandon that, because we know it doesn't work. It's been tried and it doesn't work. The interesting thing is that, as far as I know, there is no correlation between, let's say, strict anti-new psych active substances legislation, and youth or other, the correlation is often inverted. The stricter the legislation, the more people will go and look for the substances. It's not always true, but it's true in quite a number of cases, and it's something to remember as well. I think I'll leave it there. I think there are plenty of people around the table who know more about this than I do, so I'd be very happy to answer questions, but I'd be even happier to listen to some of the real experts. Thank you very much.