Jill Evans, the Plaid Cymru MEP, has spoken extensively about the precautionary principle, particularly in this context, actually. I went digging through some of the European Commission's communications, and we know that the precautionary principle aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision taking where there is an element of risk. Preventative decision taking—surely that chimes with the underpinning principles, for example, of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. It tells us that, where there is doubt, we have to err on the side of caution, and there are three specific principles that inform the precautionary principle. First of all, we have the fullest possible scientific evaluation; well, in the few minutes that we've been in this Chamber I think we've heard clearly that we haven't had that, as should be the case. Secondly, that an evaluation of the potential consequences of the action are undertaken; well, I'm not convinced, clearly, that that has happened sufficiently. And thirdly, that the participation of all interested parties in the study of precautionary measures—that everybody takes part in that process, and again, we're failing on that front as well. The burden of proof, as we've heard, needs to be on the developer. The public reaction, in my book, shows that we've failed on all of those counts.

And in relation to the polluter pays principle—and you could say that this is a different argument, but just as valid—what about remuneration? We know that this is intended to be dumped in Welsh waters. There's a landfill tax if you dump on land, so what happens in our seas? What if the sediment does, actually, lead to some environmental damage? It'll be a cost to Welsh Government, but, surely, shouldn't there be a payment of some sort of compensation? Shouldn't the polluter be liable in some way or other, and not just the Welsh taxpayer, potentially, picking up the pieces?

Somebody mentioned, or asked the question: why isn't this being dumped in the Thames? Well I know why—because it's politically unacceptable. So, why is it politically acceptable that this is dumped in Welsh waters? [Interruption.] Look, it's valid, it's valid. It is valid—of course it's valid. These are Welsh waters. There will be issues in future, we know there will be, there's bound to be, and people aren't convinced that all of these have been addressed.

And the final point that I'd like to make, in the 60 seconds that I have left, is, again, questions—. [Interruption.] No, I've just said, I've got 60 seconds and there's one more point I really need to make. [Interruption.] No, this is the most important point. It's about the relationship again—and I've raised this with you previously, Secretary—the relationship between Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales. We're told, in this context, Natural Resources Wales is independent, it's an arm's-length organisation, they are the experts, they tell us, and we cannot interfere. And then in other areas, which I touched upon last week, they make a decision, Government doesn't like the decision, you effectively issue a diktat, and that decision is overturned. It's pick and choose, isn't it? It's pick and choose in terms of the Government's relationship with Natural Resources Wales. Well, you've made the wrong choice this time, and you should tell everybody what that situation is and make the right decision.