Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Petitions Committee's report on petition P-05-785, 'Suspend Marine Licence 12/45/ML to dump radioactive marine sediments from the Hinkley Point nuclear site into Wales coastal waters off Cardiff'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—David Rowlands.

Motion NDM6727 David J. Rowlands

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the petition ‘P-05-785 Suspend Marine Licence 12/45/ML to dump radioactive marine sediments from the Hinkley Point nuclear site into Wales coastal waters off Cardiff’ which received 7,171 signatures.

2. Notes the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition, which was laid in the Table Office on 14 May 2018.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I welcome the opportunity to introduce this afternoon’s debate on this petition and our report on the evidence we received. The petition we are discussing was submitted by Tim Deere-Jones, and received 7,171 signatures. It relates to sediment that will be dredged from the Severn estuary close to the site where the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant is currently being constructed. As all Members will know, this petition has sparked a significant level of interest and debate.

By way of background, EDF Energy has, via a subsidiary company, applied for a marine licence to dispose of the dredged sediment elsewhere within the Severn estuary. Because the site chosen—the Cardiff Grounds—is on the Welsh side of the channel, the licence was considered and issued by Natural Resources Wales.

It is important that I address up front some of the timing challenges that the Petitions Committee has faced during our consideration of the petition. We first considered the petition during November 2017, although, as I will cover later, the marine licence had, in fact, been issued several years earlier. It was also our understanding that the dredging operations could be set to take place within a relatively short space of time. As a result, we gathered evidence as quickly as we were able to. This included sessions with the petitioner, EDF Energy, NRW and CEFAS—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—who conducted the analysis of the sediment. The committee also received and considered a significant volume of written correspondence. This is all documented in our report on the petition, which was published on 14 May. 

During their evidence, EDF informed us that the dredging was due to take place this summer. Therefore, in order to enable this debate to take place in a timely fashion, the committee chose to report the evidence we have received at the earliest opportunity. Because of this, we have not had the luxury of time to draw conclusions or produce recommendations. I hope that this overview provides the necessary context to Members and anyone watching proceedings today.

I would also like to briefly thank everyone who provided evidence to the committee. We appreciate the fact that the people and organisations we consulted recognised our timescales and made their time and expertise available to us within them.

I will now turn to the evidence that we received. May I say at the outset that, as a committee, we have sought to deal with the petition and the wider issue with the seriousness required? We have also sought to give priority to the scientific evidence received and, hopefully, to avoid alarmism or sensationalism.

In 2014, NRW issued a marine licence for the disposal of the sediment. The original application had been submitted in 2012, and it is worth noting that, at that time, the licensing process was managed directly by the Welsh Government. Therefore, the licence was handed over from the Welsh Government to NRW during its consideration. The licence issued contained a number of conditions, including a requirement that samples of the material had to be taken and analysed, and that NRW have to be satisfied that it is suitable for deposit.

The petition was driven by concern that this testing had not been sufficient, and that the sediment could be radioactive as a result of over 50 years of operations at the existing Hinkley sites. The primary concerns of the petitioner related to two elements of the testing: the depths to which samples had been taken and the methodology used for analysis. 

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I will address the depth of sampling first. The petitioner was concerned initially that samples had only been taken up to a depth of 5 cm. However, this was not correct. The committee heard that samples were taken and tested in 2009, 2013 and 2017. Some of the 2009 samples were taken up to a depth of 4.8m. The agencies involved in the testing have stated that they found no greater concentration of radioactivity at depth, and that led them to conclude that no further analysis of samples below the surface was necessary.

We were also informed that a key aspect of the testing process is a calculation of the dose that the dredging crew or the wider public could be exposed to from the material. However, during our investigations it emerged that a dose calculation had not been conducted on the 2009 samples. We requested that NRW ensure that this was addressed. This request was accepted and NRW informed us in late March that the dose calculation had been conducted retrospectively and had concluded that the material poses no radiological risk to human health or to the environment.

Nevertheless, the petitioners have continued to pose questions about the sufficiency of the testing. These include the number of samples taken at depth in 2009—which we understood to be five—and the fact that this exercise has not been repeated since.

The Petitions Committee considered that additional testing may provide further public reassurance. We wrote to NRW in January to recommend that they request the licence holder to arrange for further samples to be taken and analysed. They asked EDF to consider this on a voluntary basis, but this was rejected by EDF on the basis that the scientific evidence already demonstrated that the material is not radioactive. NRW also expressed the view that further testing was unnecessary and it was not something it could revisit through the licence or its conditions. Though we accept that the primary reasoning for additional testing was public reassurance rather than scientific necessity, the committee regrets that this recommendation was not taken forward. 

Moving on to the testing methodology itself, we considered a range of concerns about the testing carried out and, in particular, the range of radioactivity tested for. Full details are contained within our report and Members may be relieved to hear that I will not go too deep into the technical information during this contribution. The concerns amount to uncertainty over the limits of the gamma ray spectrometry techniques used, and the number of results that had previously been reported. Based on the previously published information, the petitioner had questioned whether all radionuclides had been tested for, or only those that had been reported as returning positive results. It has also been proposed—and confirmed by CEFAS—that the technique used could not directly identify alpha and beta forms of radiation.

However, the committee has received assurances from EDF, NRW and CEFAS that the testing and analysis has been carried out to the highest international standards, and that these are conservative in nature. We have also been told that the testing would have identified any gamma-emitting radionuclides present within the samples, and that the results were used to derive readings from other forms of radiation that are not directly identifiable using this technique.

A number of other concerns and questions have been raised and have received answers during our evidence gathering. These points are covered in our report and I am sure many will be covered during the rest of this debate.

In summary, our consideration of this petition has not resulted in a meeting of minds between those with concerns over this issue and the organisations and agencies involved. I think it would be fair to say that it was never likely to. Of course, we are reliant upon the scientific processes and the agencies that oversee them, as well as those who have responsibilities to protect our health and that of the environment.

I am sure that the level of concern and opposition demonstrated by the petition is a source of regret to those agencies. I hope that the evidence gathered by the Petitions Committee during our deliberations has helped to answer some of the questions that have been raised about this issue. We have made every effort to accurately report the evidence we received, and I also hope that people with an interest in this issue will read our report and perhaps find answers within it. All the evidence we heard is also published on the Assembly’s website for people to scrutinise.

Our understanding is that the dredging remains set to take place this summer, but that EDF are awaiting the conclusion of these processes at the Assembly. I feel it is right to acknowledge that. I will end my opening remarks there and I look forward to listening to Members' contributions this afternoon. Diolch yn fawr.

David Rowlands gave a very good summary of what we've been through. I think that he understated it when he said there wasn't a meeting of minds between the petitioners and EDF. I think they probably started off very far apart and didn't get one inch closer during the whole of the discussion that took place.

I will start off with what EDF's view is. They say they're one of many companies over many decades that have been dredging sediment in the Bristol channel and depositing it at licensed disposal sites at Cardiff Grounds. The sediment, they say, that they are dredging in the Bristol channel is typical of the sediment found anywhere in the Bristol channel, and as such it is no different to the sediment already at Cardiff Grounds. They say the sediment is not radioactive by law and poses no threat to human health or the environment. And they say the sediment has been tested by the independent body CEFAS in 2009, 2013 and 2017, including comprehensive sampling at depth. 

There is no question about the integrity and independence of the testing carried out by CEFAS, which carries out work to the highest international standard, and is an executive agency of DEFRA. Natural Resources Wales received the latest sample from CEFAS in December 2017. After consultation with independent experts, including Public Health Wales, on 27 March 2018 Natural Resources Wales concluded that the sediment poses no human or environmental risk. The view from Natural Resources Wales in March 2018 was that the sediment from the dredge sites has been tested thoroughly by independent experts and there is no risk from the dredged material to people, the environment, or the wildlife that lives there.

Will the Member give way?

Certainly.

Of course, I've had many representations and concerns raised by constituents, and one point relates to the recent sampling and analysis that you refer to. It has been raised with me that it doesn't necessarily establish the safety of deep-dredged material. So, I just wonder, from your consideration as a member of the committee receiving evidence, do you consider that further sampling of deep sediments is necessary?

'Yes', is the answer. I'm going to come to that in a few moments, but, yes, I desperately do. I'll just finish off the first part.

Taking the naturally occurring and artificial radioactivity together, the levels are so low they pose no danger to human health or the environment—that's the view of EDF.

Following on from what Jane Hutt said, why is there a problem? We've been told it's all safe and that there are no problems. Why are my constituents contacting me? I'm sure Jane Hutt and others representing the area around Cardiff are getting their constituents contacting them. Why are we debating this today if it's all safe? Many members of the public are unconvinced, and not just those who have signed the petition. Lots of people have stopped me on the street and asked me about it. People talk to me when I go out about it. It's a matter of general concern that mud is being brought from opposite Hinkley point and brought back here. EDF have told us all these things about how safe it is, but people are unconvinced. The vast majority of people that I've met are unconvinced. They have concerns over the movement of the mud.

So, what I'll ask, and it's what I have asked at the Petitions Committee—. We've had all these groups together, CEFAS, Natural Resources Wales, EDF, all agreeing this. What I asked in the Petitions Committee, and I ask it here, is: can the data be made available to academics? Can we have an assessment of the mud by academics? Can samples be taken as requested by the academics? People have got a greater trust in academics, who have got nothing to gain by looking at these things, than they do in the official agencies of Welsh Government and British Government. That might be unfair to the official agencies, it might be unkind to the official agencies, but that's the view of my constituents and, I'm sure, the constituents of others: they'd like somebody outside to come to have a look at it.

If it is safe, then the above must be carried out to reassure the public. If it's not safe, it should not come here. We cannot resolve this today—we're just going to have a debate and a discussion about it—but it's a scientific question; it needs a scientific answer, it needs people to be testing it. It needs, in academic parlance, a peer review.

Can I urge the company to have an academic peer review of the data and methodology and that any additional samples that are requested by the academics are provided? I think that the only thing that's going to reassure my constituents, and, I'm sure, the constituents of others, that it's safe is if external academics who are not part of what one of the people who came to see us saw as a little group of people who all work closely together—. One of the people who came said that people move around in jobs between the three organisations. They actually want people who have not got an interest in this, who they feel they can trust. And the only way that we can do this is by having external academics, so I would really urge that EDF bring in the academics. They say there's nothing to hide—let's prove it. 

Can I thank David Rowlands and his Petitions Committee for the diligence with which they've worked and produced this report? I'm also grateful to Tim Deere-Jones, who took the trouble to meet with me and brief me on the campaign. 

I sit, as does Mike, as the Chair, on the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, and, of course, we have had discussion of these matters and received evidence. Also, we hold the Cabinet Secretary to account and we have discussed these matters with her. 

The position of the Welsh Government, NRW and EDF Energy, the company, which you might expect, is that there isn't a difficulty here in terms of the safety of the operation that's being undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary stated on 29 September that, and I quote:

'it is important to note, the licence is not for the disposal of nuclear waste. The material licenced for disposal is sediment dredged from the Severn Estuary.'

End quote. And I don't think the Welsh Government has changed its position at all. NRW stated that they are confident in CEFAS's competence and believe that

'there is no need to consider licence suspension.'

That, again, is a direct quote from NRW. The CEFAS assessment raised no concerns, quote, 'regarding the level of radiological contamination'. Indeed, they said that what was present was equivalent to eating 20 bananas a year, 10,000 times less than an airline pilot's annual dose and 750 times less than the average dose received by a resident of Pembrokeshire due to radon. Consequently, radioactivity has been found to be so low it equates to not radioactive in law—all these by robust internationally accepted methodologies.

Now, if we do have a wider problem—

Would you give way?

Just a moment. I do think we have a problem regarding the public understanding of these issues and the engagement with the public, and I will address that. But if we are going to ride roughshod over the established norms of scientific internationally accepted practice, as is conducted by states all over the world, then we're in a very, very difficult position, and I do urge Members to bear that at the forefront of their minds.

I will give way, if you still want to intervene.

Yes, I'm doing a comparison, really, between what has happened in Kosovo, with the mud there, as a result of the weapons used, where they tested via gamma spectrometry, alpha spectrometry and also plasma-mass spectrometry. Unfortunately, all EDF have done is just one of those, so there are several plutoniums that it is impossible to detect with the testing that EDF have undertaken—they've only done alpha spectrometry.

Well, my understanding of the evidence is that that internationally accepted methodology could have detected the need to examine specifically for the other contaminants that you have referred to. And you've put that on record, and it is for others now to point to evidence if it so exists. 

Can I just say that we've already heard that the data has been made available to the campaign? Now, I do understand there's a problem about interrogating that data because of software issues, but the basic—

Would you give way again? 

Just a moment. But the basic transparency of sharing of the information cannot be contested. Again, I think we should do something to ensure that it can be then interpreted by as wide a range of people as want to look at it, but it is not a closed procedure.

I know you're interested in this issue very deeply and you will make your own contribution, but if you want to intervene again, this last time.  

Thank you, but, in terms of transparency, the raw data was not transferred; it's been disposed of. That's a fact. 

Well, my understanding is that it's been acknowledged by the campaign to have been given over to the campaign. Now—as I said, I understand the issues. I know time is now racing on and I just need to make a few essential points, because there has been a discussion about the methodology. I am not a nuclear scientist—I'm not a scientist of any description, unless you count political science as a science, and I'm not sure I would. But I think the point we need to look at is: are the internationally accepted norms robust? And, if they're not, you need to show very strong evidence of that, otherwise there's very little we can do in this Chamber that we can have much confidence in if we're going to have such a doubting attitude to the data that is out there. But, you know, my mind is open and if people can show that there are problems with the methodology then, of course, we should look at them. 

The issue of the material being analysed at depth—I certainly think it would have reassured the public more if this had been done, and it was requested and I do think that those that want to proceed with this licence did miss an opportunity to reassure. They did that on the grounds that it wasn't scientifically necessary, and that has not been challenged by the likes of NRW, as we've heard. But I think those that are involved in these operations do have a duty to consider how the public are likely to react and interpret such an action. 

And then, on this whole issue of the data and the methodology that is used, again, I do think it's up to the likes of the companies involved, NRW and the Welsh Government to help people interpret these matters in a way that they can draw justified inferences from, remembering that they're not experts either, or at least most of them are not, and these things do have a big impact. 

Can I conclude, Llywydd, by just saying that I do think the petitioners have done a great public service here in that we're discussing this? We've undoubtedly scrutinised this whole matter in much more depth than we would otherwise have done. So, I think it's important that we recognise the worth of these civic groups that take a lot of time and trouble to look at these matters. And I'm certainly open to any new evidence should it be brought forward, but at the moment I think it is my duty to say that, as far as my examination of these matters, they do meet the standards that have been set by international norms, and, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think we have to proceed on the basis that those matters have been fully tested scientifically and that we can have confidence in the licence that's been awarded. Thank you.      

I will speak briefly about the work that we did as a committee. I'm grateful to the clerks and the team for their work in putting a report together, and doing that in a short time. It's important that we do remember what that timetable was. The licence was approved back in 2014 following an application two years before that, if I remember rightly, but this didn’t come to the public’s attention, not broadly anyway, until autumn last year, with the work supposed to start on moving the mud in a couple of weeks from now. But the fact that those concerns haven’t been raised until late in the process doesn’t make those concerns less valid. And that’s what my starting point was in terms of considering this issue.

I congratulate the campaigners for the forensic detail of the evidence and their analysis of the evidence that they had. The evidence that they gave us as a committee was a great contribution to our work, and I hope that that evidence is reflected in the report that was summarised by the Chair.

Now, the outcome of the work that we did—at least, I thought—was that there was scope to do further work and have further inquiries in order to give assurance to people that all the possible information is in our possession and that that information has been presented fully. There has been discussion about the nature of that information and how accessible that information was. And I did suggest that more testing could be done, particularly on the depth, because there was concern about that. What CEFAS said was this:

'If that is a requirement to allay public perception, we would be very happy to do that.... We could make it more transparent in terms of how that assessment is done'.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

If they proposed that there was a more transparent way to do the assessments, then we should have capitalised on that opportunity, I think, to move ahead in the most transparent way possible.

NRW said on 30 January that they had asked the licence holders to consider doing more sampling at depth on a voluntary basis. On 27 March, despite that, NRW let us know as a committee that the licence holders had rejected that idea. Now, I do appreciate and I hear what David Melding has said, that the licence holders are arguing, and have argued consistently, that there isn’t a scientific argument for doing more tests, and that they have confidence in the science. But, with such a contentious issue, one would imagine that the licence holders would have welcomed the opportunity to operate as openly as possible. There was a window for doing more testing and I think they should have taken advantage of that.

Two final points: I also regretted the fact that Cardiff Council had chosen not to push for more tests. There is genuine concern among many people about this and if it had been possible to respond to those concerns in any way then we should have looked for an opportunity to do that. I think that several key partners would need to collaborate to push for further testing, and I think the decision by Cardiff council did weaken those hopes.

Finally, there is nothing that comes to Wales from this agreement to put 200,000 cubic metres of mud from Hinkley in our waters. That raises fundamental questions for me. My fellow Member, Simon Thomas, can go into more detail on that in due course, hopefully.

Thanks to the Petitions Committee for bringing today's debate. As many people have said, there is a lot of public concern about this issue. Evidence for that is the 7,000-plus people who have signed this petition. So, I think it's entirely right that we are debating this subject today here in the Assembly.

Public knowledge of the science behind this may be limited, but we do have to allay public fears and there has to be a transparent process and it has to be more transparent than what we've had so far, I believe. We are increasingly living in a world of experts. These experts have certificates and they have letters after their names and, in most cases, I don't doubt that these experts do possess a lot of knowledge, but we have to ensure that, as a society, we don't topple over into a technocracy. Experts making decisions on matters that have wider public interest need to be held to account by the public.

Decisions that carry a major public impact need to be open and transparent, and big companies, and particularly public utility companies like EDF, need to ensure that their procedures are transparent. What this petition seems to be focusing on is testing and the quality of EDF's testing procedure. Now, EDF say that their testing procedures are fine, but they are a commercial concern, so they would say that, wouldn't they? What the petitioners seem to want is a more transparent testing regime.

What we haven't had thus far is an environmental impact assessment. Mike Hedges, who knows probably a lot more about the science behind this than I do, is talking about an independent academic review, and the independence, as he put it, is the crucial factor. I think these are perfectly reasonable things to ask for, if only to allay perfectly understandable public anxieties and actual public fears. Two constituents of mine came—well, they didn't come to me on this point, I have to agree, but they raised this issue and this was many weeks ago, possibly months ago. The wording of what they said to me was something along the lines of, 'What's all this about the nuclear sludge they're going to be dumping in the Bristol channel?' Well, I don't know whether 'nuclear sludge' is in any way an accurate term. As David Melding said, I'm no scientist, but it is an indication of the public concern over this. EDF say they have been using the Cardiff Grounds for disposal of dredging material for years, but I believe not this kind of material. Is this material purely a benign heap of mud? Is it anything akin to nuclear sludge? I don't know, but the public do need to know and we do need to have some kind of independent review. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. Julie Morgan. 

Thank you very much for calling me to speak in this debate, and thanks very much to the petitioners for bringing these important points to our attention. I'm not actually on this committee, so I wasn't present to hear some of these discussions in detail, but I have certainly been approached by many people in my constituency and by different petitioners.

In a fairly short contribution, what I'd really like to say is that I feel that the depth of concern is there and that people have not been reassured by the responses that have come from NRW and that have come from other agencies. It does seem to me very important that we do absolutely the maximum we can to ensure we know what is in the sediment that is being dumped so close to us here in Cardiff. So, I would certainly support the recommendation of the Petitions Committee that there should be further samples taken, and I would speak in support as well of Mike Hedges's contribution, because I think that it is our utmost duty to keep our population safe and that we should do all we possibly can to ensure that everything we can do is done.

I do think that the independent academic research would be a way forward. I certainly accept what David Melding has said—that at some point you have to have a trust in what agencies may say that are giving genuine scientific, independent views—but I don't really think we're actually at that stage from what I've heard. I think there is a clear case for having further samples taken, and I hope that that will happen. 

Thank you. Janet—[Interruption.] Can I just address the public gallery? It's great that you're here, it's great that you're taking an interest, but please, you cannot shout out. I don't mind you clapping, but we can't have any shouting out because that does disrupt our proceedings. So, it's great that you're here, it's great that you've got a real interest in this, but please don't disrupt our proceedings. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm really pleased that this actually has found its way to a debate here in the Siambr of the National Assembly for Wales, because, as has been pointed out, 7,171 signatures came in on this petition. Now, I know it's been said that we are not environmental scientists or marine environmental scientists. I'm an Assembly Member, but I'm there to represent my constituents. I'm also, in the more corporate working of this Assembly, there to represent any constituent, due to my membership of the committee, who I feel has some valid and just considerations that need to be taken into account. I have been a little bit disappointed by NRW's approach to this committee and the reluctance, in some ways, for us to have the information provided for us so that we could actually formulate a report that was based as much as possible on real evidence.

Now, the marine licence for the disposal of sediment dredged as part of the construction of a water cooling system for the new Hinkley Point C power station was issued by NRW to NNB GenCo, a subsidiary of EDF. The petition called for the suspension of the licence under either section 72 or section 102 of the marine Act, arguing that the environmental and human health risks have not been adequately researched and the data used to analyse these is incomplete. In determining an application for a marine licence, section 69 of the Act requires both these risk categories to be taken into full account. Powers over the issuing and enforcement of this licence lie with NRW following the vesting of these powers in April 2013. However, the initial applications were made to the Welsh Government prior to this, and despite what many would think would be clear reasons to request one, an independent environmental impact assessment was not asked for at this time.

Further issues raised by the petitioner include the testing methodology, scope, and concerns over the deposit site. In considering this petition, the committee took evidence from the petitioner, EDF energy, NRW and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—CEFAS—who undertook the test sampling, and it soon became apparent to me that there was no question that there hadn't been sampling; the question and concern was around the depth of the sampling taken. It's my understanding—I don't know whether, Neil, you could confirm—that the actual evidence that we've been seeking was actually taken in 2009, and we're now in 2018, and it worries me that companies of this size would be bothered about going back and doing more sampling.

There is general dispute between the petitioner and CEFAS as to the adequacy of the testing undertaken. Tests were carried out in 2009, 2013 and 2017, but, again, I revert back to the earlier date for the actual depth. However, the petitioner, along with Friends of the Earth Barry and Vale, have expressed serious concerns over the types and numbers of radionuclides reported on. This was conceded by CEFAS in relation to gamma-emitted radionuclides, and they noted that they had only reported on the three that had returned results above a minimum threshold, but accepted the point that, in future, they could make it more clear in reporting which ones were also present but below official detection limits.

Additionally, concerns have been raised, as we've mentioned, regarding non-gamma emitters, alpha and beta-emitting radionuclides, which CEFAS confirm that they did not test further for, given that the generic first-tier assessment indicated that these doses were well below the international recommended limits. Of concern, I think, was the refusal in January this year by the licence holder to undertake further additional sampling and testing at depth following a request by NRW. Now, they do represent the Government and they represent our people. This request was made at the demand of the committee and as a result of the petitioner's concerns that not enough samples had been taken. Further, the issue of other chemical contaminants within the sediment was raised, and I, for one, was concerned to note that EDF reported that those at the Hinkley dredge site were above the CEFAS action level 1, so within the scope to undertake further investigation. This amounts to 'quite a small breach', in the words of EDF, yet Friends of the Earth Barry and Vale suggest that no further consideration has been made of these contaminants.

Deputy Llywydd, NRW provided assurances that they would not give the licence approval unless they were fully satisfied that the material was suitable for disposal, yet despite the very obvious public concerns on the matter, including by us as Assembly Members, they formally discharged condition 9.5 of the marine licence in March this year. I would, therefore, endorse the calls by Mike Hedges AM, and Julie Morgan as well, to seek to use section 102 of the marine Act to put a pause on this licence until further adequate testing has been carried out and a full public consultation undertaken. If these companies have no concerns, if they want to restore public trust—

Are you winding up, please?

—in this application, and if they want to restore the trust of the Petitions Committee and some of our Assembly Members, I think it is incumbent of them to do further testing.

I speak to echo what has already been said by Rhun ap Iorwerth and some others. I’m very grateful to the petitioners and the Petitions Committee for a very detailed report on these issues, and I would also refer to the correspondence with the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and with the Minister on these issues.

I would just like to start with the fact that this debate, despite its importance in the Assembly, cannot change this licence. This is a licence approved by NRW, but the Minister does have the power to intervene in this process, and I hope that the Minister will have listened to the debate and will do what she feels is appropriate.

I want to speak about something that hasn’t been mentioned to date, namely the fact that we have so little control over our natural resources that we have to accept this mud from the other side of the Severn to be dumped on the Welsh side. It highlights how little power we have, and the petitioners have done the Assembly a great service even in highlighting that fact. Now, if it happened on the mainland, if it wasn’t at sea, then the Cabinet Secretary for Finance would have a great interest in this issue, because anyone disposing of mud in this way would have to pay a tax, a landfill disposals tax—a new tax established under the new finance authority here in Wales. Anything in terms of construction on that land would mean that you would have to pay for the disposal of that waste. It’s part of the founding principles of environmental law—it’s the 'polluter pays' principle. That is one of them.

The fact is that we share responsibility for the Severn with England, so there is a joint responsibility that we should shoulder, of course, in looking at what is an area of special conservation—a matter that hasn’t been referred to as of yet. So, for me, there is a founding principle here. Why don’t we deal with our seas and use offshore disposals in the way that we deal with disposals on terrestrial land? It does underline how deficient the whole process has been, that something has been outsourced to a body that was newly established by the Welsh Government without any democratic accountability for that decision. In that regard, I would echo what has already been said.

So, it really is a very important petition, I think, because, setting aside the issue of radioactivity, which I'll address just in a second, this essential issue is one of lack of control over our own natural resources, and being forced, in effect, to take the spoils from a new nuclear power station—which I personally oppose, and therefore not very keen to take anyway—but not having any control about how we make those decisions here in our Assembly. It's really underlined how difficult it is to enact our sustainable management of natural resources under the well-being of future generations Act and our environment Act. It's really underlined how little control we have over our own natural resources and protecting future generations.

But I do want to conclude by saying this: in my mind, that in itself is enough to persuade me to have at least a pause on some of this until we understand better the impact on our environment and better understand some of the testing that's been called for by other Members here. But I also want to say this: I do think it's very important that when we discuss these issues, we do not talk about things that don't exist. I haven't seen any evidence that the mud itself is radioactive or dangerous, and that's not something that I've raised in this Chamber. To me, it's an essential principle about who controls our natural resources and who decides what happens in Welsh waters. And that should be a decision for this Parliament and for this elected Assembly, not a decision for a quango or an outsourced body. That's my complaint here.

I also want us to have, in an independent Wales, which I want to see one day, trust in our institutions, trust in our scientists, and trust in the way we do public science in Wales. Some of that trust has been lost because not enough people have been open with each other, but some of it's lost because people, when they see evidence that they don't like, simply think there's a conspiracy theory at work. That is not the case. The case here is that we have contentious spoils from a contentious nuclear power station, which I think we must treat in the calmest, most rational way. Who decides whether this gets dumped in Welsh waters? Is it a private company, decided by a quango, or is it this Parliament? I say it's this Parliament and I say we should make that decision.

I would like to thank the Petitions Committee for their report and the 7,171 people who raised the petition regarding marine licence 12/45/ML. I, like the petitioners and thousands of other people across Wales, am deeply concerned about the plans by the French nuclear energy company to dump irradiated sediment off our coast. The south Wales coast is a very important ecosystem—home to a wide variety of flora and fauna. The coastline in my region is home to several of the world’s top beaches. We should be taking every action in order to protect this important part of our ecology. We saw licences granted to dredge sand that destroyed our beaches, entertained the idea of building a vast offshore windfarm that threatened to endanger a school of harbour porpoise, and now they're content to allow 300,000 tonnes of potentially radioactive sediment from England to be dumped just off our coast.

I know that, according to the licence holder, the sediment from the nuclear power station has been tested and deemed to be no threat to humans and not classed as radioactive under UK law, however there are concerns that that testing methodology was not sufficiently robust. The testing methodology only looked at the top metre of sediment and only looked at gamma particles. Research conducted elsewhere shows that higher concentrations of radionuclides are found at depths greater than 1 metre. We also know that there are 16 times more radionuclides produced by nuclear reactors than were tested for.

The sediment surveys tested for caesium-137, cobalt-60 and americium-241, but what about plutonium or curium? Why were these not tested for? What about strontium or tritium? Do these radionuclides not carry a risk to human health? Of course they do, but they were not tested for, and nor were the 50 other radionuclides known to be present in discharge from these old nuclear power plants.

In these circumstances, we should be adopting the precautionary principle. Until there is a thorough scientifically robust, independent safety inspection conducted on this sediment, the licence should be suspended. If the report categorically deems the sediment to be safe for humans, wildlife and the environment, then consideration may be given to grant a licence. But until then, we risk doing untold damage to our ecosystem, threatening the viability of some of the world’s top beaches like Rhossili and Three Cliffs Bay.

I plead with the Welsh Government: order more testing, don’t risk our amazing beaches, don’t endanger our wildlife, put Wales first. 

There are people demonstrating outside today, and I was the only Assembly Member to attend. I know that the campaigners found that very, very disappointing. In total, there are over 100,000 people who have signed various petitions about this. I'd like to start with an indisputable fact, because by allowing the 300,000 tonnes of mud from outside Hinkley Point to be dumped in Welsh waters, we are enabling the UK and Chinese Governments to build a nuclear power station. 

Now, Plaid Cymru is completely opposed to nuclear power, because if we look at very recent history—Fukushima, Chernobyl, and further back, Three Mile Island—we're always told that nuclear energy is safe, but accidents keep on occurring. I'm glad to hear that there is opposition from Plaid Cymru to this proposal today. I'm also happy to give way if, maybe, Rhun ap Iorwerth would like to give a clear statement opposing the new nuclear reactor in Ynys Môn. No? That's—

I think I've told you before—

That's loud and clear—

I decide who gives way and who takes interventions. You carry on with your speech, and I'll decide on the interventions.

Okay. Well, it's a fact that the dumping of mud will allow the nuclear power station to be built, so what is Wales getting out of it? What are we getting out of this deal? The answer is a big fat zero—dim byd, nothing, nada, nothing at all. So, England is dumping its nuclear mud on Wales, and this Government is accepting it—this Labour Government in Wales. I'm almost speechless. How can that be allowed to happen? If it's so safe, dump it in the Thames. If nuclear energy is so safe, locate those reactors in the south-east of England.

Now, let's look—[Interruption.] London. Let's look at the precautionary principle, as mentioned earlier, because according to the European Commission, the precautionary principle can be invoked when the full risk is not known. Now, the truth of this matter is that nobody—nobody—in this Chamber knows if this mud is safe. Nobody knows. It's worth repeating that the testing was done below 5 cm, 300,000 tonnes of mud, and just five—five—samples taken in 2009, and that the raw data has been disposed of, as I said earlier. Only gamma testing was done. Now, scientists advise me that some types of plutonium don't give out gamma. And if you look at Kosovo, the testing done in the mud there—they've done three types of testing, which are alpha spectrometry, plasma mass spectrometry and the one type of spectrometry carried out on the mud outside Hinkley Point. So, what is good enough for Kosovo should be good enough for Wales.

Also, if you look at the figures on the data given from 2009, Natural Resources Wales are wrong, they're simply incorrect, because if you look at the data, it's there in black and white: there is an increase in radioactivity the lower you go. If you look at the data from 2015, if you apply the difference, then you could be getting beyond the de minimis above safe levels. I met with Natural Resources Wales in September and, to be perfectly frank, they could give me virtually no answers to the questions I posed. They knew nothing about the testing regime and they knew nothing about where the mud was going to end up. It's deplorable that the agency looking after the environment in Wales has no expertise—no expertise—in these matters. If this material is unsafe—and I say 'if' it's unsafe—those particles will travel 10 miles inland—10 miles inland.

So, I think it's very reasonable—reasonable—to say, 'Retest the mud.' It will cost £100,000 out of a £40,000 million project. It's absolutely a reasonable thing to ask, and I ask that the Minister directs NRW to suspend the licence until retesting is done. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking the Chair, and the members of the Petitions Committee for their work in producing the report and also Members for their contributions to the debate today. I, of course, acknowledge the concerns raised, and I'm very keen the public and this Chamber are reassured on this matter. I very much welcomed sight of the report, which set out the significant evidence that is being considered by the Petitions Committee. I note the committee have carried out a thorough review with key delivery bodies and experts throughout, and I'm grateful to all who've engaged in the process, including Natural Resources Wales, who are the marine licensing authority in Wales. They issued the marine licence for the disposal activity and they continue to be responsible for it, including ensuring compliance with the conditions imposed on the licence.

I must be mindful of the Welsh Ministers' role in relation to marine licensing appeals, and as such, it is not appropriate for me to comment on specifics of marine licensing decisions. The marine licensing determination process provides for a thorough and robust assessment of proposed activities, including consideration of the need to protect the marine environment and human health. I can assure everyone: all marine licence applications are considered in line with legal requirements set out within Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007—

Would you give way, Cabinet Secretary?

Yes.

Would you accept—I am advised by scientists; I'm not a scientist—that some kinds of plutonium will not be identified by the beta testing? Very simply, why wasn't the alpha spectrometry done, and the plasma mass spectrometry, as in Kosovo, on the mud?

I'm reassured that CEFAS, who carried out this assessment for NRW, are working to the highest international standard, and that's what reassures me.

I very much welcomed David Rowlands's comments that the committee sought to give priority to scientific evidence and to avoid alarmism and sensationalism, and he said that CEFAS, EDF and NRW are reassured, again, that the tests are carried out the very highest international standard. The evidence in the report shows that Natural Resources Wales have made their determination based on expert advice, in line with the radiological assessment procedure developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I note that all the tests and assessments carried out by NRW and their experts in this specific field concluded the material is within safe limits and poses no radiological risk to human health or the environment. I also note from the report and the committee's consideration that the issues raised by the petitioner have been given significant consideration, and clear evidence has been provided to support the conclusions made in relation to this disposal activity. So, I want to be very clear and reiterate this point. I'm very keen for this clear message to be communicated fully to the public: NRW have determined, based on expert advice, that the disposal activity poses no radiological risk to humans or the marine environment.

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Yes.

From what she's said, I might take that to understand that she does not expect any further testing or any further process to be undertaken by NRW before this material can be deposited in Welsh waters. Is that a correct understanding of what she said?

There is no scientific basis for any further testing or assessments to be done, so I think if they did that, that would set out a very dangerous precedent.

NRW have made information available on their website, and I hope, again, this provides reassurance on the robustness of the decision-making process undertaken. I have listened very carefully to the points raised today, and as I stated at the outset, I do acknowledge concerns. Welsh seas and coasts are a real jewel in our crown, and we strive for them to be recognised for being clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse. It's very important, as a nation, we are able to balance the need to protect our marine environment, to protect human health and deliver sustainable use of our seas.

As Members are aware, I've consulted on our first Welsh national marine plan, and this builds on the strong progress we're already making in the stewardship of our seas, supporting our goal of delivering good environmental status of the marine ecosystem. We're making a significant contribution towards the ecological coherence of the network of marine protected areas, whilst protecting and enhancing the marine environment through both the management of pressures and a robust consenting regime. So, although I'm unable to comment specifically on this matter, I note the committee's report, and I will ask Natural Resources Wales to review the way they've communicated the messages in relation to this marine licence and the decisions made.

I think David Melding's point about engaging with the public much more clearly is very important, and I think there are lessons that we can learn for future decisions and the sharing of information, particularly those that are technical in nature, to ensure that those clear messages and outcomes are well understood by all. Diolch.

Thank you very much. [Interruption.] I have asked the public gallery to be quiet and not interrupt any more of our Assembly business. If you carry on shouting out, I will ask you to leave.

Can I call on David Rowlands, please, to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Llywydd. Before I make my final comments, I wish to acknowledge and thank the clerking team for the work they have done under pressure of time. So, I do thank them for that. And can I thank the petitioner for bringing this petition forward? It has made us scrutinise the whole procedure with regard to nuclear power dumping, and I do thank you for doing that. I also thank the organisations and agencies who provided evidence to the Petitions Committee. Lastly, can I thank the Members for their contributions to this debate? As there have been so many, I think that the best way I could deal with this is to summarise what most of the AMs have said in their contributions.

They brought out the concerns with regard to the transparency of analysis procedures, and called for it to be far more transparent when these agencies are doing their work. Many also called for a pause in the proceedings and for further samples to be taken. There were also concerns about the types of radioactivity testing and, of course, Neil McEvoy was very adamant about that and, I think, very cogent in his arguments with regard to that.

If I can move to the comments by the Cabinet Secretary, who acknowledged public concerns, but asserted that the tests were carried out under the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the very highest standards. She asserts also that there were no scientific reasons for new tests to be carried out.

To conclude, whilst I hope the committee’s deliberations and today’s debate have aired some of the issues raised by this petition, I recognise that nuclear power and its by-products are emotive issues. Therefore, a range of views are inevitable. This, of course, is a healthy part of a functioning democracy and, given the risks and safeguards associated with nuclear processes, the concerns that have been expressed are entirely understandable. Ultimately, we have heard that the granting of marine licences is the responsibility of Natural Resources Wales, and they have told the committee and this Assembly that they are satisfied that there is no risk to human health or the environment. As a committee, I believe we are content that all the evidence received was provided in good faith, and that the various agencies who have been involved in this process have discharged their functions according to the processes and standards required.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, for the opportunity to discuss this issue today. Diolch.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.