I welcome the opportunity to contribute in the debate this afternoon, as someone who was on the first Petitions Committee back in the 2007 to 2011 Assembly, when we adopted this principle of people being able to bring petitions to the Assembly, not just to be deposited in a sack behind the Speaker or the Presiding Officer's chair, such as happens in Westminster, but for a committee of the Assembly to actually scrutinise and bring Ministers to account and, obviously, make sure that petitioners feel that their concerns are being answered. So, I do welcome the Chair's opening remarks and the positivity with which the committee have engaged in this process, noting that this is the second petition to come, because, as has been said earlier, this is the second planned mud drop, if it does go ahead. And I, as someone who represents the region of South Wales Central, which has a large coastline that potentially could be affected by this mud drop, I've had numerous constituents obviously raise their concerns.

I come at it from a slightly different perspective in that I do support nuclear power. I believe it is part of the energy mix that we need to see, and in fact have visited the Hinkley power construction site and noted the number of Welsh workers who are on that site and the Welsh pound that has been rewarded with investment from the project as a whole. But that said, I think it is of critical importance that the developer does undertake an EIA and it does address the concerns—the genuine concerns—that people have put before me and many other Assembly Members and, indeed, the Petitions Committee. I do welcome the company's willingness to actually now commission such an EIA before it submits its evidence to Natural Resources Wales, who, ultimately, will be the determiner of the licence in this particular instance.

But what is equally important is that they do not mark their own homework, that the evidence and the methodology and all workings are shown crystal clear so that they can be tested, because, obviously, this has the potential to affect a large part of the south Wales population, but also the west country coast as well, by movement within the estuary. It's my understanding that the mud has to stay within the estuary because of the sensitivity and the nature of restrictions that are on that particular part of the Bristol channel, and this is one of two grounds that they can identify as being suitable to take the mud from the discharge site.

But I do accept that there's a broad spectrum of opinion on this. Indeed, the Chair of the committee highlighted that in her opening remarks, when she said there is a broad body of opinion that is concerned about the mud that might be dumped because it might have contaminants in, and the EIA, hopefully, will either prove or disprove that argument, but, equally, there is a body of opinion that is against nuclear energy and doesn't believe that we should be developing nuclear sites. I do not fall into the category of stopping nuclear power, and I want to be honest and transparent about that, but I do fall into the category of making sure that the developers' feet are held to the fire, that they are held accountable and that all the evidence that is put before Natural Resources Wales, and, in particular, the levers that the Welsh Government have at their disposal are exhausted to make sure that all these queries, these concerns are addressed, so that we can have confidence that the second mud drop that will be undertaken is safe, is compliant with the rules that will be imposed and, ultimately, will safeguard the estuary from any pollutants that might be disturbed, should anything be proven when they start digging out that mud.

So, I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject this afternoon. I welcome the work that the Petitions Committee has undertaken, but, above all, I welcome the 10,000 plus signatures that have gone on to this petition that have brought it before the Assembly, so that we can, hopefully, play our part in making sure that we get a just outcome and an outcome that satisfies people's concerns.