1. Will the Cabinet Secretary support the scientists seeking answers from Magnox Ltd as to the number and extent of cooling pond accidents at Hinkley Point A that could have resulted in significant amounts of uranium and plutonium in the mud being dumped by EDF in Cardiff Bay? 211

I'm unable to comment on matters relating to the marine licence for the dredging and deposit of material from Hinkley Point C due to an ongoing legal challenge seeking an injunction to suspend the marine licence.

In the 1960s, Hinkley Point A was a nuclear bomb factory. In the financial year of 1968-9, half the nuclear core was removed to provide weapons-grade plutonium. The system was designed to remove only one fifth of the core in any given year. The rush was the result of the international non-proliferation treaty coming into force in 1970. It has been admitted by Magnox Ltd that there were cooling pond accidents. We must find out the extent of these accidents. Given that there could be uranium and plutonium hot particles that would not have been detected by the gamma spectrometry testing carried out, will the Cabinet Secretary request that Natural Resources Wales suspends the dumping licence and carries out alpha spectrometry and mass spectrometry to be able to say for sure exactly what is in the mud—please?

I answered the Member and made it very clear that I'm unable to make a comment at the current time because of the ongoing legal process. What I can reiterate is what I've previously said in this Chamber during a debate last term, and that was that the recent National Assembly Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee report showed that Natural Resources Wales made their determination based on expert advice. It also confirmed that all tests and assessments concluded that the material is within safe limits, poses no radiological risks to human health or the environment, and is safe and suitable to be disposed of at sea.

Andrew R.T.—

Shame on you. Shame.

Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, I appreciate the constraints that are placed on you with the impending court case, but if I could maybe put two points to you and seek an answer to both points: one thing that's come up time and time again with constituents is why this particular location was chosen to dump this mud, given that, as I understand it, there were various other locations where this mud could have been disposed of. So, it's not an unreasonable assertion to try and find out why this particular area was chosen, given its close proximity to Cardiff. Secondly, given that the original licence was issued in 2014, there have been various changes in the plans around the Hinkley development. Are you confident that the licence that was awarded in 2014 does capture all of those changes and is up to date, and doesn't need a review to make sure that it does capture any of the changes that have happened in the intervening period?

Natural Resources Wales made their determination based on expert advice, and that was in line with all radiological assessments—procedures that have been developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am very happy to continue to have discussions with NRW when I regularly meet them, and keep Members informed.

Thank you very much. Isn't the protesting that is ongoing—[Interruption.] I will give you a moment.

I will continue in English. Isn't it the case that the protests that we are seeing taking place now, and the very real concerns that are being raised, are proving what I said in this Chamber back in May—that what I said then was quite correct? That was the debate, you will remember, on the report of the Petitions Committee, of which I am a Member, about what is happening to this mud. I had proposed in that committee a few months previous to that that more testing should take place, and what I said in the Plenary debate in May, as we discussed that report, and I'll quote—the quote here is in Welsh so I'll translate—was: if CEFAS themselves offered that there was a more transparent way to make the assessments, to do the testing, as they did in the Petitions Committee, then the opportunity should have been taken advantage of at that time, I think, to look for a way to move forward that happens in the most transparent way possible.

Now, there are also issues that were raised on that day about how waste of any kind, regardless of test results, can be dumped on Welsh land or in Welsh water without any recompense. But this fundamentally is an issue of transparency regarding this mud, and can Welsh Government not see now that your actions in not pushing for that retesting has caused that lack of trust in your actions?

Obviously, this is a live licence, and as such, it is a matter for NRW. You talk about transparency. They have issued a public statement. They've also put a significant range of decision-making documentation on their website so that people can access it. So, I think, from a transparency point of view, NRW have addressed that issue.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You'll be aware that I raised two questions yesterday on the business statement, and I do appreciate the constraints you face in terms of responding to these as a result of the legal position that you're in at the moment. But I did ask a question on the business statement regarding the lack of an environmental impact assessment on the Hinkley Point mud concerns, and I think that's something that clearly would be helpful if at all possible, to have some kind of clarification on prospects for an environmental impact assessment, but also constituents have raised specific concerns, which I did also raise in the Petitions Committee debate, about inadequate sampling of deeper layers of mud. So, clearly, there is a great deal of public concern, and I am aware that Richard Bramhall of the Low Level Radiation Campaign, a former member of the UK Government's committee examining radiation risks for internal emitters, voiced worries about the test. So, again, this is an opportunity today to put those questions again on the record, and I also would be grateful for any further clarification, within the constraints that you face, that you can give us.

I think a key point to note is the non-EIA approach doesn't mean a full and thorough environmental assessment was not undertaken. A radiological assessment was carried out, it was supported by experts, as well as the wider environmental and human health assessments that are needed for the marine licence determination. An EIA was carried out on the Hinkley Point C project overall. The EIA was submitted as part of the supporting information supplied with the application for the marine licence and as such was considered in the determination—[Interruption.]

Carry on, Minister. Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. I don't want to add a lot to what the other Members have said—ones who have raised points. We did have a debate on this in May, as Rhun mentioned, and it has to be acknowledged that there is a wide public anxiety about this issue. We spoke about the environmental impact assessment, or the lack of it, in the debate we had in May. I don't really think those issues have been addressed, or at least, at the very least, there is a public perception, certainly, that these issues haven't been addressed. I think that we do need to curb public anxieties, address the issues, and I think we do have to have some greater level of testing before we go ahead with this. So, hopefully you can respond positively to that, Minister.

Well, I think I did. Certainly, when we had the debate last term, I made it very clear that the Welsh Government is very keen to reassure the public and Members, and I think I addressed that in the debate.

Thank you very much. I understand the constraints that the Cabinet Secretary is under, but I wanted to use the opportunity to express the concern there is in my constituency of Cardiff North. A lot of constituents have contacted me and it has been raised in a number of meetings that I've been at. There is concern about the safety in Cardiff, so I feel we should do all we can to explore, to whatever end we can, to, if necessary, reassure people. If it is safe, then we need to be able to do that.

I did speak, raising these issues, in the Petitions Committee on 23 May. And I know that, now, more information is being sought about Hinkley A, which we know has been decommissioned, but that in 2001, Magnox Electric, which then owned the original Hinkley site, was fined £100,000 for breaching nuclear waste disposal and plant maintenance legislation. So, obviously, that is a concern for members of the public to know that that has happened.

I also echo the question about why this particular place was chosen for the dumping to take place when it's only 2 km, I believe, from the shore. And what are the benefits to us in south Wales by having this mud dumped here? What sort of discussions or debates did take place about that decision? So, I'm anxious that any further scientific evidence that could be obtained is obtained, and I know that Professor Barnham has raised particular issues, so I would urge the Cabinet Secretary to do all that she can to address the concerns of the public about the possible dangers.

I mentioned before that, obviously, this is a live licence, so it is a matter for NRW, and concerns can continue to be addressed to them. I do think they have taken the step of making a public statement, making sure a significant range of decision-making documentation has been placed on the website in order to reassure the public. And as I say, I took my position to do that also in the debate that we had last term.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.