UKIP will be opposing this resolution today. I'm sorry to see that none of the other parties in the Assembly will do so as well. In his introduction, the Cabinet Secretary said that this is a targeted measure. It is in one sense because it targets the many without actually benefiting the few who drink irresponsibly. Whereas most people like a drink and they drink responsibly, there is a very small minority that cause problems for themselves and for the rest of society. The key question is—. Nobody doubts the ill effects of excessive drinking, which John Griffiths has just alluded to, but the question is whether a measure of this kind is likely to be effective in targeting those people. The evidence, such as it is, proves the opposite, in fact, and this comes out in the report of the health committee and, indeed, the evidence that we received in the Finance Committee as well.

I'm afraid that Angela Burns is seeking the holy grail if she thinks that econometric studies or any mathematical study is likely to shed a great deal of light on this issue. International comparisons are almost impossible to compare with the situation in any other country, because the cultural assumptions of different countries differ enormously, and the institutional world in which people drink is very, very different from country to country. The Sheffield study that was referred to earlier on actually makes the rather surprising assumption that it's the heaviest drinkers who'll be most responsive to an increase in price. That's really counterintuitive. The people who are least likely to be affected by an increase in price are those who are most dependent upon alcohol, so they will carry on drinking—