Thanks to the two Members for bringing today's debate, and also to Neil McEvoy who's been very active in campaigning on this issue. There has been an awful lot of public anxiety about this issue of materials being dumped in the Bristol channel, as we've heard today, yet again. We've had a petition that gained more than 7,000 signatures. We've had Members from all four parties in the Assembly raising concern over this. We now also have Friends of the Earth and Barry Town Council, which, as Jane Hutt said, had an extraordinary meeting to discuss this issue. They're now adding their voices to the controversy—among many others.

As I said when we debated this on a previous occasion, I'm no scientist, so I'm not qualified to make any kind of scientific judgment. It's Natural Resources Wales, or NRW, who seemingly have the environmental scientists. But unfortunately for NRW, they do not have the best record at selling their decisions to the general public. Earlier this year, there was a big panic over the flood relief scheme at Roath brook in Cardiff. We had people climbing up the trees to protest at what was going on. Now, this nuclear sludge controversy in the Bristol channel is turning into an even bigger public relations disaster. So, whatever the science of this is, NRW do need to do more to allay public anxieties and public fears. As they are not minded to do this, then the Welsh Government have to intervene to give us more detailed evidence and to suspend, in the meantime, NRW's marine licence.

So, UKIP supports today's motion and opposes Labour's amendment, which largely tells us that NRW's evidence is correct, although Labour do at least concede the need for NRW to better explain their decision to the public. Unfortunately, matters have moved beyond that now. We do need to see more evidence, so we oppose the Labour amendment today. We also support Neil McEvoy's amendment 3, which notes some of the alternative evidence and also calls for NRW to carry out a full environmental impact assessment. I do take on board Rhun's point that there may be a technical problem over who is responsible for the EIA, but I would like to make it clear that we do support the call for that EIA. Diolch yn fawr iawn.