Presiding Officer, I'm not taking any interventions. Everyone's had their chance to speak, and I want to set out the facts.

The conditions include there being a breach of licence provision, changes in the scientific views or the circumstances in relation to the environment and human health. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the conditions set out in section 72 are met. To suspend the licence in such circumstances would be against the law. We can and must only act on evidence. We are at risk of setting dangerous precedents if we stop listening to our experts.

Secondly, I would like to respond to the concerns around testing, assessment and licensing procedures. Independent expert advice was received from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. Cefas are internationally recognised experts in marine, chemical and radiological analysis. Sampling of the material to be disposed of and associated testing of it was carried out in 2009, 2013 and 2017. At-depth samples were taken in 2009. Additional depth samples were not required in 2013 or 2017 as, based on expert advice, the material at depth would not have changed. I note that, for this particular disposal application, given its location to Hinkley Point, Cefas carried out a conservative generic radiological assessment, developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is the internationally agreed method for testing for levels of radioactivity that determine whether the London convention requirements are met.

Points have also been raised about historic issues with cooling ponds and the production of weapons-grade plutonium at the Hinkley site. This has understandably prompted further concern, but I will say again that the test results on this marine licence show that the dredged material is within safe limits and poses no radiological risk to human health or the environment and is safe and suitable to be disposed of at sea.

Only certain types of projects require an environmental impact assessment. Nuclear power stations are an example of a type of project that does require an EIA, and, as such, EDF produced an EIA for the Hinkley C project. Other types of projects don't require EIAs, or the need for an EIA is determined by the appropriate authority on a case-by-case basis. The decision was taken in 2012 to screen the disposal activity out of the requirement for an EIA. Disagreeing with the decision does not make it wrong. It was a lawful decision. A key point to note is that this non-EIA approach does not mean a full and thorough environment assessment was not undertaken. A public consultation on the marine licence application was carried out in September 2012 for 28 days, in line with the standard procedure for most marine licence applications. Post-licence monitoring and any actions to be taken as a consequence of the survey findings is required, in line with condition 9.1 of the marine licence, for the disposal activity.

The third theme I want to cover is the need for public reassurance and the campaign to suspend the marine licence. I fully acknowledge this matter has become an issue for many people in communities across Wales, and there has been a great deal of media coverage. Whilst I, of course, respect the right to protest, I'm very concerned by the ongoing scaremongering and lies being circulated as part of the campaign against this marine licence, which has resulted in unnecessary public concern for the people of Wales. Furthermore, I was alarmed by the call to blockade these works as part of the campaign. This is dangerous and risks public safety. Against the tide of misinformation, and to reassure the public, I asked Natural Resources Wales to write to AMs and local authorities to set out the facts in order to dispel myths and untruths and ensure all information was available on their website. However, this week, I have again met with NRW and written to them using my powers under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, setting out my expectations on further engagement and communication with the public. I hope this additional information will help Assembly Members again reassure their constituents and also members of the public. And, in answer to Jane Hutt's specific question, I'll be very happy to update Members when I receive further information.

The reason I cannot support the original motion today is because this licence has been granted lawfully, assessments have been carried out robustly, and the evidence has been assessed by experts and in line with international standards. The evidence and decision-making process has been made available, and there are no grounds for further testing or suspension of the licence. NRW will undertake wider engagement and targeted communications. I also believe it is deeply disappointing there are some who are deliberately seeking to mislead the public for their own political gain and misrepresenting the facts. [Interruption.]