Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I've agreed to give some time to Carolyn Thomas, Sam Rowlands and Mike Hedges to contribute to this debate also. Now, there are many reasons given in favour of nuclear energy, and on the surface, they can be convincing, but look a little deeper and you will see that these arguments are very superficial indeed. Some say that nuclear energy is needed to provide for the required energy baseload. That's not true. Baseload in itself is contentious, as it doesn't provide the necessary flexibility in modern times. Energy planners say that there must be flexibility for baseload, and it's possible to ensure this with the right mix of energy—be it solar, wind, hydro, tidal or blue hydrogen.

But for those who are tied to the belief that we need a baseload, then we have the most effective resource here in Wales, which is the tide, with parts of the coast of Wales having some of the biggest tidal ranges in the world. If one is looking for baseload, then we can get this by investing in the natural resources already here, linked to storage technology.

The latest reason given by the Government here for the development of nuclear is for medical nuclear. This is particularly attractive on the face of it—who could argue against medicine that helps with the diagnosis of cancer, or Alzheimer’s, or a host of other diseases? But, in this context again, the arguments are superficial and it doesn't justify the building of a new nuclear power plant, and this is why. A few years ago, there was an acute shortage of the main isotope used for nuclear medicine, namely technetium-99. As the nuclear power plants in the Netherlands and Canada aged, the isotopes became more and more scarce. This is what has brought about the idea of developing a medical nuclear centre here.

But, to safely produce isotopes, you need a research reactor. Producing isotopes from a conventional reactor is extremely dangerous, and a power plant for energy is the priority here. So, between the decommissioning and the small modular reactor plans, there is no room on the site at Trawsfynydd, for example, for a research reactor as well. Never mind that, the shortage of technetium is being resolved. Germany is building an irradiation facility for the production of technetium at München university, and the Jules Horowitz research reactor is being built in France. Indeed, that's an international partnership, and the UK is a key partner. These two research reactors will produce more than enough isotopes for Europe's needs, as well as the UK's.

But even better than that, the excellent work of Dr François Bénard from the University of British Columbia has led to the ability to produce technetium-99 by using cyclotrons—equipment smaller than a small car, without the need for any kind of nuclear reactor, and we can have many of those across the country. I would encourage the Government to work with the University of British Columbia in order to take advantage of that technology.

Of course, there is always radioactive waste attached to nuclear medicine too, but the half-life of technetium is six hours. It can be disposed of safely within weeks. This is very different to the half-life of thorium, which is 80,000 years, or plutonium, which is 28,000 years. And that's the reality—nuclear is dangerous. From the moment it's extracted from the earth to be used as fuel, and then waste, it is fatal and it exists for hundreds of thousands of years. It's a dirty industry ecologically, environmentally, and it is dangerous to all living things. 

I've spoken with the Anishinaabe peoples of Ontario, and the Mirarr peoples of Northern Territory of Australia, who have told me about the serious damage that continues to affect their people and their land as a result of uranium mining in their territories. Their communities suffer from high levels of cancer and other health conditions, and from appalling poverty, because the truth is that the nuclear industry is a colonial industry. The industry is stripping lands of dangerous minerals against the will of those communities, and it’s not me saying that, but the Ojibwe, the Shoshone, the Adnyamathanha, the Kazakhs, and others who are saying this. And what about the waste? There are still dangerously high levels of caesium 134 and 137 that continue to be found in Trawsfynydd lake, according to the latest Environment Agency reports—20 years after the nuclear power plant finished producing electricity there. And despite the talk of solutions to the waste, nobody has found any way of dealing with the waste safely.