It's perhaps illuminating that EDF, the firm behind the project, have now felt it necessary to undertake an environmental impact assessment before Natural Resources Wales insisted on them doing so. I think that that is a recognition of the need for a comprehensive and thorough analysis of sediment samples. And this goes beyond the initial sampling plan, which was the subject of public consultation, of course. I trust that EDF's scoping will be comprehensive and that the findings, of course, importantly, will be made publicly available to everyone.

Now, EDF says that it intends to go further than normal regulatory requirements in order to provide the public with additional reassurance. Well, that in itself, I think, is a measure of the campaign's effectiveness to date, and we'll wait to see details of how thorough and how deep the tests will be, including tests for pure alpha emitting particles and tritium.

So, to quote EDF on their reason for the unilateral decision to undertake an EIA, they say, 

'We believe it is right to go beyond technical arguments to provide the necessary public confidence that all concerns have been addressed.'

'All concerns have been addressed'—well, I should hope so, too, because such is the level of public interest in this that we have to retain public confidence as well. And that is welcome news because no such impact assessment was carried out in the initial dump in 2018. And I have to say that the nuclear industry generally doesn't have a very good track record in terms of openness and transparency, which may well explain some of the opposition that we're looking at here in Wales to these proposals.

So, Plaid Cymru supports a full and transparent environmental impact assessment, which, of course, is the main thrust of the petition before us today, quite simply because of the history of the site; it's been a nuclear power plant for more than half a century. Radioactive particles from the outflow pipes of Hinkley Point A, which operated from 1965 to 2000, and Hinkley Point B, which has been open since 1976, have been flushed out into Bridgewater bay for the last 55 years. And, of course, we know that there were plutonium leaks from Hinkley Point A in the 1970s, which may also have contaminated the mud that they now, of course, want to dump in Welsh waters. And this new proposal, remember, is to dump eight times as much mud compared to the last dump in 2018. It's 600,000 cubic tonnes, compared to 82,000 tonnes last time.

Enough time has elapsed to enable the EIA this time to examine and assess what happened to the sediment dumped at the Cardiff grounds dispersal site in 2018. And the EIA should also ensure that radiation levels along the southern coast of Wales are measured before any further dumping, and that would give us baseline data against which any increases in radiation, as a result of any further dumping, could be determined. With the tidal range in the Severn, of course, it's very likely that this mud will disperse far and wide and particles could be washed ashore, and the impacts of this on people living along the coast, using the beaches, even those who eat seafood, should be measured and assessed as well.

Testing in Cumbria in the 1980s by researchers from the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell established that sediment dumped from Sellafield nuclear power plant was washed ashore and subsequently blown several miles inland. So, any impact assessment on this proposal should also focus on the potential for this mud to be washed ashore and blown inland from the south Wales coast. Understanding the extent of the dispersal of this mud, especially onto our shores, and the impact of the actual particles contained in it that may be harmful to wildlife and to humans is absolutely paramount. Comprehensive measuring should also mean testing to detect alpha emitters, not just gamma emitters, because alpha emitters are more dangerous when they're inhaled.

During my meeting last month with Natural Resources Wales, I made it clear what I expected from this process before any possibility of granting a licence for further dumping. And EDF is carrying out this EIA, but, of course, it shouldn't be allowed to mark its own homework. It needs to show all of its working publicly so that we can all have confidence in the robustness and validity of the process. If the well-being of future generations Act is to mean anything, then the precautionary principle has to apply here. The onus here has to be on EDF and Natural Resources Wales to prove that the mud dumping is safe beyond doubt and not just leave it to campaigners to try and prove that it isn't, and any failure in that respect should mean no dumping. I'll be watching over this process with an eagle eye, as I know others will, I'm sure, over the coming months to make sure that we get the right outcome for our environment and, of course, for the health and the well-being of the people of Wales.