Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Well, it's been an interesting, informative and enlightening debate, and UKIP has brought this debate forward in a spirit of consensus at this time of year, when the spirit of goodwill should suffuse us all, and it seems to have done so. Even though we can't accept all of the amendments, at least we managed to avoid the 'delete all', which usually is the preamble to all the amendments that are put down to our own motions. So, I can welcome that, at least. In the era when I was growing up as a small boy, of course we didn't actually throw away a lot of waste; I was always taught not to leave anything on my plate, so we didn't actually put fat down the sink, or anything of that kind. These are problems of modern life and a developing economy.

I'd like to thank all those who took part in the debate, and I thank Llyr Gruffydd for the information that St Asaph is the waste blockage capital of Wales, and that certainly was news to me. But it does, I think, illustrate the extent of the problem—even a small place like St Asaph can have a big problem of this kind. I shall certainly draw Nick Ramsay's attention to the problem of putting baby wipes down the loo and so on, as he can, I think, point the way forward in his own household, and hence to the rest of Wales. But Llyr Gruffydd referred, in the course of his speech, to an EU directive, and I sensed a kind of joshing in the way that he spoke about that, as though UKIP shouldn't be supporting anything that the EU is in favour of. But, of course, we're not against everything the EU does, just that we want to do it for ourselves, and as he rightly pointed out, we would be able to take our own measures in Wales, if and when we ever do leave the European Union, and UKIP would be an enthusiastic supporter of such a measure.

Andrew R.T. Davies made a good point, I think, that because this problem is largely unseen, it's beneath our feet—or the effects of it, anyway: the development of fatbergs in sewers and so on—we don't actually think about it until the problem is exposed by the need to unblock the sewers and, therefore, the roadworks and excavations that are required to do so. And it's timely, therefore, that we should have this debate. He pointed out what the UK Government is doing in this respect as well, and that anything recyclable should be recycled, but the end date of 2042 does seem quite a long way away—I shall be 93 then, if I survive so long—and I wonder whether that timetable is perhaps a little too dilatory.

I'd like to thank John Griffiths, also, for his contribution to the debate today. Although it was inadvertent, at least it lightened the points that we were all putting forward. Michelle Brown I think made some very interesting points as well. I was interested, in particular, in the figures that she produced from the Marine Conservation Society—that there are 14 wet wipes per 100m of coastline, and that's a 700 per cent rise in 10 years. If nothing is done about this, clearly this rate of increase is going to continue. But I do agree with her, and, indeed, with Andrew R.T. Davies, that a tax is perhaps not the best way to tackle this problem, and, in particular, how effective could it be? If the items that are going to be taxed are actually relatively cheap, it would need to be a very significant increase in tax to have any effect upon human behaviour, and that would bear most dramatically upon those on low incomes, which is something that we should all bear in mind when we propose taxes to try and change behaviour. We have to weigh up the competing interests that are in contradiction with each other. Hannah Blythyn played a very straight bat, I thought, very well, as the Minister, and I will certainly remember one phrase in her speech, anyway, about pee, paper and poo being the only things we should put down the loo. I think that comes in the class of 'too much information', but maybe it was right for her at least to insert one memorable phrase into the debate today.

So, I think everybody will agree that this has been a useful exploration of the issue, and I'm sorry that the Government can't be bolder in its aspirations, because deleting our motion, which calls on the Welsh Government to widen work on extended producer responsibility beyond food and drink to include consumable items such as wet wipes and cotton buds doesn't seem to me to be in itself a controversial aspiration, and merely to note Government's work to explore options doesn't really go far enough. So, of course, we can't support amendment 2, because it's not bold enough. There is a problem of externalities, which needs to be addressed, and the Government is in the best place to do so.

So, on that note, I think I will draw my remarks to a close. And this is the last time I shall speak in the Assembly before Christmas, so I'd like to wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year.