Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Well, Nick Ramsay opened the debate by hoping that he would be thought-provoking, and I don't think he will have been disappointed. I want to thank all those Members who’ve taken part.

Let me say to Nick as well that if I didn't think we had an idea that merited consideration on its own terms, then I wouldn't send it out to test the new machinery, but I don't think we will be in that position at all. Nick Ramsay himself referred to environmental taxes, and if anybody thought that we weren't capable of coming up with an idea that was sufficiently robust in its own terms, then they should have listened to Simon Thomas and his exposition of environmental taxes in relation to the use of plastic bottles here in Wales. I'm sure we will, at the end of this process, have an idea that stands up to examination and is worth testing, too.

Llywydd, the debate, as often happens here, exposes a fault line through the Assembly. On one side of the debate, you have those Members who are instinctively hostile to taxation. So, Neil Hamilton, I thought, was very open in saying that that was indeed his position, and Mark Reckless, with his description of taxation as a punishment and a burden, exposed his position on that fault line, too. On the other side of the fault line, you have Adam Price, when he described the need for change with a purpose, and Huw Irranca-Davies when he talked about the common good. For me, taxation is not a burden on people. It is the way in which we come together collectively to make our individual contributions so that we are able to do together what not any one of us would be able to achieve by ourselves. That’s why, because we have that basic belief that taxation is the way we act together to promote our common goals, we are interested in testing this new machinery, cumbersome and difficult as it may be.

And I wanted to thank all those Members who contributed potential ideas to that expanding list of possibilities. Mike Hedges went through a long list of possibilities. He reminded us of taking Corona bottles. I used to take Tovali Special bottles back in Carmarthen in order to make sure that my grandmother gave me the change that came from returning bottles on deposit. Who would have thought that the chewing gum removal tax would have made its way back onto the floor of the Assembly? [Interruption.] Thank you very much. Or, indeed, that a diesel tax could have been turned into a debate on diesel tourism? But, there we are—it’s been the nature of the debate, and, in doing so, it has added to the richness of the possibilities that we have here to test. And Jenny and Simon Thomas and others have all added other ideas to the new set of possibilities.

Let me just end by saying that Huw Irranca-Davies, I thought, reminded us of why sometimes having a procedure that is testing is important, too. We will need to test any ideas that we develop against their unintended consequences to make sure that they are progressive both in purpose and in impact. That’s why I intend to use the summer and into the autumn, as I explained earlier on in opening the debate, to get as wide a range of ideas as we can to begin with, to bring them down to a shortlist of the most promising ideas, and then to have to come down to one candidate to test the machinery. In doing so, I hope we will end up with a tax that is fit for the purpose we would intend, that does good things for us here in Wales, and, even if we didn’t, I return to the point I made, which is that, in testing the machinery, we will learn a great deal, maybe about the defects of the machinery itself, and, in that way, we will be able to go on developing the way in which our fiscal responsibilities, new in this Assembly term, can go on being a valuable part of the way that we do business here in Wales in the future.