Well, I am saying that, actually. I'm saying that the proportion of the cost that consumers pay is higher in the United Kingdom than it is anywhere else in Europe. I can provide the figures for the honourable Member if he wishes, but with only three minutes to go, I don't think I have got time.

But we have the highest rate of beer duty in Europe, at 52.2p a pint. That's 13 times the duty in Germany or Spain. What is it about Britain or Wales that creates an alcohol problem? It certainly isn't the existence of cheap alcohol, so we must look elsewhere for the solution to the social problems that excessive drinking of alcohol by a small minority of irresponsible people brings about.

There is no logic whatever to the alcoholic duties in Britain, because alcohol duty per unit on beer is 8p, on strong beer, it's 18p, on cider, it's 8p. But strong cider is actually taxed at a lower rate than ordinary ciders, and strong sparkling cider is five times the rate of ordinary cider. Wine is taxed at 20p a unit, and sparkling wine at 25p a unit. So, there's no logic to the differences in the way alcohol is priced at all. Taxing stronger ales and beers through a minimum alcohol price is only likely to lead to a diversion from one type of alcohol to another, rather than to reduce the social problems that excessive drinking causes.

Also, there are other taxes that might be in prospect, like a sugar tax. Most of these taxes, of course, are going to bare most heavily upon those in society who are least able to cope with the extra tax burden. The poorest 10 per cent of people in the United Kingdom spend 20 per cent of their gross income on a combination of duties and value added tax. We have a highly regressive system of indirect taxation in this country. We should surely not be trying to make that worse than it is.

But there's a general principle here: the extent to which the state should be trying to influence people's behaviour in their lifestyle choices through the tax system. If there's a problem of public order that is created as a result of binge drinking on Saturday nights in city centres, then we can cope with that better by enforcing the law on public disorder. Years ago, the police used to arrest people for falling over in the street drunk and vomiting in gutters. Now, it's almost a form of popular entertainment to watch this happening in the city centre. So, it's not the price of alcohol that is the problem. If people go out to get hammered on a Saturday night, then they will do that anyway, regardless of the price, unless you're going to introduce really draconian increases in duties beyond what we have now.

So, this debate is called today as a kind of plea to move Wales in the direction of a low-tax economy that is going to maximise the potential for wealth creation in what is one of the poorest parts of western Europe. That's not an accolade that I want Wales to continue to have. We are now, as we know, the poorest part of the United Kingdom, amongst all the nations and regions of England. Twenty years ago, we were second from bottom, now we are bottom. Do we not want to do something about that? If we do have the opportunity to use income tax as a means of influencing the economy, surely we should seek to make Wales a kind of internal tax haven in the United Kingdom. That's not just for libertarian reasons of wanting people to keep in their own pockets as much as possible of the money that they themselves have earned. What I earn and what you earn and what the public at large earns does not belong to the state. So, I believe in, as Mr Gladstone used to put it, money fructifying in the pockets of the people. If we go back to Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations—I'd like to end my speech with this reflection—where he says:

'It is the highest impertinence and presumption…in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense...They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.'