I will speak briefly about the work that we did as a committee. I'm grateful to the clerks and the team for their work in putting a report together, and doing that in a short time. It's important that we do remember what that timetable was. The licence was approved back in 2014 following an application two years before that, if I remember rightly, but this didn’t come to the public’s attention, not broadly anyway, until autumn last year, with the work supposed to start on moving the mud in a couple of weeks from now. But the fact that those concerns haven’t been raised until late in the process doesn’t make those concerns less valid. And that’s what my starting point was in terms of considering this issue.

I congratulate the campaigners for the forensic detail of the evidence and their analysis of the evidence that they had. The evidence that they gave us as a committee was a great contribution to our work, and I hope that that evidence is reflected in the report that was summarised by the Chair.

Now, the outcome of the work that we did—at least, I thought—was that there was scope to do further work and have further inquiries in order to give assurance to people that all the possible information is in our possession and that that information has been presented fully. There has been discussion about the nature of that information and how accessible that information was. And I did suggest that more testing could be done, particularly on the depth, because there was concern about that. What CEFAS said was this: