English: 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.
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Wel, mae wedi bod yn ddadl ddiddorol, addysgiadol a buddiol, ac mae UKIP wedi cyflwyno'r ddadl hon mewn ysbryd o gonsensws ar yr adeg hon o'r flwyddyn, pan ddylai ysbryd ewyllys da ymledu drwy bawb ohonom, ac ymddengys ei fod wedi gwneud hynny. Er na allwn dderbyn y gwelliannau i gyd, rydym o leiaf wedi llwyddo i osgoi'r 'dileu popeth', sydd fel arfer yn y rhagymadrodd i'r holl welliannau a gyflwynir i'n cynigion ni. Felly, gallaf groesawu hynny, o leiaf. Yn yr oes pan oeddwn yn tyfu fyny yn fachgen bach, nid oeddem yn taflu llawer o wastraff wrth gwrs; cefais dy nysgu bob amser i beidio â gadael unrhyw beth ar ôl ar fy mhlât, felly nid oeddem yn arllwys braster i lawr y sinc, na dim byd felly. Problemau bywyd modern ac economi sy'n datblygu yw'r rhain. Hoffwn ddiolch i bawb a gymerodd ran yn y ddadl, a diolch i Llyr Gruffydd am y wybodaeth mai Llanelwy yw prifddinas Cymru mewn perthynas â charthffosydd wedi blocio, ac roedd hynny'n sicr yn newydd i mi. Ond mae'n dangos maint y broblem, rwy'n credu - gall hyd yn oed lle bach fel Llanelwy gael problem fawr o'r math hwn. Rwy'n sicr o dynnu sylw Nick Ramsay at broblem rhoi hancesi gwlyb ar gyfer babanod i lawr y toiled ac ati, gan fy mod yn credu y gall ddangos y ffordd ymlaen ar ei aelwyd ei hun, ac felly i weddill Cymru. Ond cyfeiriodd Llyr Gruffydd, yn ystod ei araith, at gyfarwyddeb yr UE, ac roeddwn yn synhwyro rhyw fath o gellwair yn y ffordd y siaradodd am hynny, fel pe na ddylai UKIP gefnogi unrhyw beth y mae'r UE o'i blaid. Ond wrth gwrs, nid ydym yn erbyn popeth a wna'r UE, dim ond ein bod am ei wneud ein hunain, ac fel y dywedodd yn briodol, byddem yn gallu rhoi ein camau ein hunain ar waith yng Nghymru, os a phan fyddwn yn gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd , a byddai UKIP yn cefnogi cam o'r fath yn frwd. Gwnaeth Andrew R.T. Davies bwynt da, rwy'n credu, nad ydym yn meddwl am y broblem hon am ei bod yn anweledig i raddau helaeth, mae hi o dan ein traed - neu ei heffeithiau, beth bynnag: datblygiad tomenni braster mewn carthffosydd ac ati - hyd nes yr amlygir y broblem gan yr angen i ddadflocio'r carthffosydd ac felly, y gwaith ffordd a'r gwaith cloddio sydd ei angen i wneud hynny. Ac mae'n amserol, felly, i ni gael y ddadl hon. Tynnodd sylw at yr hyn y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn ei wneud yn y cyswllt hwn hefyd, ac y dylai unrhyw beth sy'n ailgylchadwy gael ei ailgylchu, ond mae'r dyddiad targed o 2042 i'w weld yn bell i ffwrdd - byddaf yn 93 bryd hynny, os byddaf yn goroesi cyhyd - a thybed a yw'r amserlen honno ychydig yn rhy araf o bosibl. Hoffwn ddiolch i John Griffiths hefyd am ei gyfraniad yn y ddadl heddiw. Er ei fod yn anfwriadol, o leiaf fe lwyddodd i ysgafnhau'r pwyntiau yr oeddem yn eu cyflwyno. Gwnaeth Michelle Brown rai pwyntiau diddorol iawn hefyd. Roedd gennyf ddiddordeb, yn arbennig, yn y ffigurau a gynhyrchodd gan y Gymdeithas Cadwraeth Forol - fod yna 14 o hancesi gwlyb ar bob 100m o arfordir, a bod hynny'n dangos cynnydd o 700 y cant mewn 10 mlynedd. Os na wneir unrhyw beth am hyn, yn amlwg bydd cyfradd y cynnydd yn parhau. Ond rwy'n cytuno â hi, ac yn wir, gydag Andrew R.T. Davies, efallai nad treth yw'r ffordd orau o ymdrin â'r broblem, ac yn benodol, pa mor effeithiol y gall fod? Os yw'r eitemau a fydd yn cael eu trethu yn gymharol rad mewn gwirionedd, byddai angen iddo fod yn gynnydd sylweddol o ran treth i gael unrhyw effaith ar ymddygiad pobl, a byddai hynny'n effeithio'n fwyaf dramatig ar bobl ar incwm isel, sy'n rhywbeth y dylem oll ei gofio pan fyddwn yn argymell trethi i geisio newid ymddygiad. Rhaid inni bwyso a mesur y buddiannau sy'n cystadlu ac sy'n gwrth-ddweud ei gilydd. Rwy'n credu bod Hannah Blythyn wedi bod yn deg iawn, fel y Gweinidog, a byddaf yn sicr yn cofio un ymadrodd yn ei haraith, beth bynnag, mai pi-pi, papur a pw-pw yw'r unig bethau y dylem eu rhoi i lawr y toiled. Credaf fod hynny'n perthyn i'r categori 'gormod o wybodaeth', ond efallai ei bod hi'n iawn ei bod wedi cynnwys un ymadrodd cofiadwy o leiaf yn y ddadl heddiw. Felly, rwy'n credu y bydd pawb yn cytuno bod hwn wedi bod yn archwiliad defnyddiol o'r mater, ac mae'n ddrwg gennyf na all y Llywodraeth fod yn fwy beiddgar yn ei dyheadau, oherwydd nid yw'n ymddangos i mi fod dileu ein cynnig, sy'n galw ar Lywodraeth Cymru i ehangu gwaith ar gyfrifoldeb estynedig cynhyrchwyr y tu hwnt i fwyd a diod i gynnwys eitemau traul fel hancesi gwlyb a ffyn cotwm ynddo'i hun yn ddyhead dadleuol, ac nid yw nodi gwaith y Llywodraeth ar archwilio opsiynau yn mynd yn ddigon pell mewn gwirionedd. Felly, wrth gwrs, ni allwn gefnogi gwelliant 2, am nad yw'n ddigon beiddgar. Mae yna broblem gydag allanoldebau sy'n galw am sylw, a'r Llywodraeth yw'r lle gorau i wneud hynny. Felly, ar y nodyn hwnnw, credaf fy mod am dddirwyn fy sylwadau i ben. A dyma'r tro olaf y byddaf yn siarad yn y Cynulliad cyn y Nadolig, felly hoffwn ddymuno Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda i bawb.