Well, my understanding is that it's been acknowledged by the campaign to have been given over to the campaign. Now—as I said, I understand the issues. I know time is now racing on and I just need to make a few essential points, because there has been a discussion about the methodology. I am not a nuclear scientist—I'm not a scientist of any description, unless you count political science as a science, and I'm not sure I would. But I think the point we need to look at is: are the internationally accepted norms robust? And, if they're not, you need to show very strong evidence of that, otherwise there's very little we can do in this Chamber that we can have much confidence in if we're going to have such a doubting attitude to the data that is out there. But, you know, my mind is open and if people can show that there are problems with the methodology then, of course, we should look at them. 

The issue of the material being analysed at depth—I certainly think it would have reassured the public more if this had been done, and it was requested and I do think that those that want to proceed with this licence did miss an opportunity to reassure. They did that on the grounds that it wasn't scientifically necessary, and that has not been challenged by the likes of NRW, as we've heard. But I think those that are involved in these operations do have a duty to consider how the public are likely to react and interpret such an action. 

And then, on this whole issue of the data and the methodology that is used, again, I do think it's up to the likes of the companies involved, NRW and the Welsh Government to help people interpret these matters in a way that they can draw justified inferences from, remembering that they're not experts either, or at least most of them are not, and these things do have a big impact. 

Can I conclude, Llywydd, by just saying that I do think the petitioners have done a great public service here in that we're discussing this? We've undoubtedly scrutinised this whole matter in much more depth than we would otherwise have done. So, I think it's important that we recognise the worth of these civic groups that take a lot of time and trouble to look at these matters. And I'm certainly open to any new evidence should it be brought forward, but at the moment I think it is my duty to say that, as far as my examination of these matters, they do meet the standards that have been set by international norms, and, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think we have to proceed on the basis that those matters have been fully tested scientifically and that we can have confidence in the licence that's been awarded. Thank you.