Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is a pretty straightforward motion today, I think, with a pretty clear purpose. It's about saying to Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales, 'Stop. Stop the current dredging going on in relation to the construction of the new Hinkley power station, stop the depositing of that dredged material on the Cardiff Grounds, and stop ignoring the concerns raised by an increasing number of citizens, and indeed elected members at all levels about what's going on.'

I'm speaking as a member of the Assembly's Petitions Committee, because it was to that committee that a petition was presented on 7 November last year, a petition to, and I quote, 

'Suspend Marine Licence 12/45/ML to dump radioactive marine sediments from the Hinkley Point nuclear site into Wales coastal waters off Cardiff'.

Now, it's worth noting the language used in that petition and, in doing so, reminding ourselves that we should try to be objective here, just as the Government needs to be sensitive to others' opinions. Whilst petitioners refer to 'radioactive marine sediments', central to the opposing argument, of course, is the claim that there is no evidence of any potentially dangerous material in the sediment. So, that's the context. 

We held a brief inquiry as a committee and learnt about some of the concerns of the campaigners that material being dredged was from near Hinkley discharge pipes, that data indicated that dredged sediments may hold significant aggregated radioactivity, that analysis had only investigated three particular nuclides rather than including many others that might be present. There was concern that testing of sediment hadn't been done at sufficient depth. Worries were voiced about the consequences of moving the sediment on marine life and there were worries about potential sea-to-land transfer, and so on. 

We listened carefully as a committee and listened to the other side of the debate too. Scientists gave evidence from Cefas, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, who were responsible for the testing. We heard from Natural Resources Wales also, and we've heard evidence from the power station's developer, EDF. All claim that the science is solid, that there's no evidence of any danger to the public, that we're talking about very, very low levels of natural and man-made radiation, that levels of radioactivity found in the sediment in 2009, 2013, 2017 were found to be so low that they equate to non-radioactive in law, and that all internationally accepted procedures have been followed leading to the issuing of this dredging licence.

So, why are we here today? Well, this testing took place, this procedure was followed without the vast majority of people knowing about it. When concerns were then raised—and, as I say, the first I knew was when the Petitions Committee were handed a petition, that's when I became involved for the first time—there was then, understandably, a great deal of public interest. So, what could and should have been done at that point?

Let me take you to that inquiry meeting of the Petitions Committee with Cefas and NRW back on 9 January this year. This was an exchange between myself and Dr Kins Leonard, their head of radiological protection. I suggested that they could, in consultation with opponents of the granting of the licence, take some more samples, stating where they were taking them from and then transparently saying what the data is from those new areas. Dr Leonard replied,

'Well, I have no objection to that suggestion. I think it's a very good suggestion. I would just add that in order to do that, we would follow exactly the same procedure'.

'Except you'd go deeper, perhaps', I suggested—a reference to the specific concern about sampling not having been done at sufficient depth. He replied,

'Well, if that is a requirement to allay public perception, we would be very happy to do that. We would follow the guidelines that are set out by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the way in which we do it and in which we assess the dose. We could make it more transparent in terms of how that assessment is done in the report, and we would be very willing to participate in that if it helps public perception.'

I then turned to our other witnesses, Natural Resources Wales, and asked,

'Can I just get a response from NRW on that?', to which John Wheadon, their permitting service manager, replied,

'Again, I would support the response from Cefas and we'll look at that.'

Now, I believe that the course of action that should have been followed at that point was to have conducted that further testing that I suggested, at depth, and in consultation with concerned parties in order to respond to public concerns. The fact that didn’t happen leads us to where we are today, with dredging happening out in the channel and concerned citizens seeing a Government that just hasn’t listened to them, despite options having been put on the table for trying to alleviate concerns.

Today, they see Government, through their amendment, removing most of the tabled motion, again refusing to engage in a process that could and should have been conducted months ago to seek more evidence and allay concerns. We will vote against that amendment. We’ll also vote against the second amendment on the advice of environmental campaigners who point out that there’s a technical issue with it. It calls for NRW to conduct an environmental impact assessment, but campaigners say it's not NRW's job or competence to carry out an EIA.

Of course, campaigners do want that assessment carried out. Despite the Cabinet Secretary for environment and rural affairs saying in a statement on 29 September 2017, and, again, I quote, that,

'Records show the applications for the disposal of material in Welsh waters took into account the overall EIA for the Hinkley Point C project', campaigners say courts have now proven that a separate EIA should be needed, as the overall general EIA doesn’t cover dredging. Without a specific EIA, they argue, you just can’t make a decision on whether to agree to or refuse a licence application.

Llywydd, I haven't gone today into the principle of how anything could be dumped quite so easily on Welsh land or in Welsh waters this easily, regardless of what that material is. I've raised that in the past, and perhaps others will comment on that during this debate. But, above all, today, this motion is about listening to people and recognising real concerns. That hasn’t happened, and I hope I’ve been able to highlight how a sensitive Government could have responded. This motion states that they should do so now by suspending the licence. The message is clear, and to all Members, including those on Labour benches, on the Government benches who have said that they agree and sympathise with the concerns of their constituents: vote for this motion today.