The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Julie James, and amendment 2 in the name of Neil McEvoy. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

We move on to item 10, which is a debate on named day motion 6813, disposal of dredged materials from the Bristol Channel, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion—Rhun. 

Motion NDM6813 Rhun ap Iorwerth, Darren Millar

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the widespread public concerns in relation to the disposal of dredged materials from the Bristol Channel to locations off the coast of south Wales, relating to the construction of a new power station at Hinkley.

2. Calls upon the Welsh Government to:

a) publish more detailed evidence in response to concerns regarding risks to public health and the environment, including allowing for further testing in order to provide greater transparency; and

b) instruct Natural Resources Wales to suspend the marine licence that enables the disposal activity and undertake a wide-ranging programme of engagement and consultation with local communities and stakeholders across south Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is a pretty straightforward motion today, I think, with a pretty clear purpose. It's about saying to Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales, 'Stop. Stop the current dredging going on in relation to the construction of the new Hinkley power station, stop the depositing of that dredged material on the Cardiff Grounds, and stop ignoring the concerns raised by an increasing number of citizens, and indeed elected members at all levels about what's going on.'

I'm speaking as a member of the Assembly's Petitions Committee, because it was to that committee that a petition was presented on 7 November last year, a petition to, and I quote, 

'Suspend Marine Licence 12/45/ML to dump radioactive marine sediments from the Hinkley Point nuclear site into Wales coastal waters off Cardiff'.

Now, it's worth noting the language used in that petition and, in doing so, reminding ourselves that we should try to be objective here, just as the Government needs to be sensitive to others' opinions. Whilst petitioners refer to 'radioactive marine sediments', central to the opposing argument, of course, is the claim that there is no evidence of any potentially dangerous material in the sediment. So, that's the context. 

We held a brief inquiry as a committee and learnt about some of the concerns of the campaigners that material being dredged was from near Hinkley discharge pipes, that data indicated that dredged sediments may hold significant aggregated radioactivity, that analysis had only investigated three particular nuclides rather than including many others that might be present. There was concern that testing of sediment hadn't been done at sufficient depth. Worries were voiced about the consequences of moving the sediment on marine life and there were worries about potential sea-to-land transfer, and so on. 

We listened carefully as a committee and listened to the other side of the debate too. Scientists gave evidence from Cefas, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, who were responsible for the testing. We heard from Natural Resources Wales also, and we've heard evidence from the power station's developer, EDF. All claim that the science is solid, that there's no evidence of any danger to the public, that we're talking about very, very low levels of natural and man-made radiation, that levels of radioactivity found in the sediment in 2009, 2013, 2017 were found to be so low that they equate to non-radioactive in law, and that all internationally accepted procedures have been followed leading to the issuing of this dredging licence.

So, why are we here today? Well, this testing took place, this procedure was followed without the vast majority of people knowing about it. When concerns were then raised—and, as I say, the first I knew was when the Petitions Committee were handed a petition, that's when I became involved for the first time—there was then, understandably, a great deal of public interest. So, what could and should have been done at that point?

Let me take you to that inquiry meeting of the Petitions Committee with Cefas and NRW back on 9 January this year. This was an exchange between myself and Dr Kins Leonard, their head of radiological protection. I suggested that they could, in consultation with opponents of the granting of the licence, take some more samples, stating where they were taking them from and then transparently saying what the data is from those new areas. Dr Leonard replied,

'Well, I have no objection to that suggestion. I think it's a very good suggestion. I would just add that in order to do that, we would follow exactly the same procedure'.

'Except you'd go deeper, perhaps', I suggested—a reference to the specific concern about sampling not having been done at sufficient depth. He replied,

'Well, if that is a requirement to allay public perception, we would be very happy to do that. We would follow the guidelines that are set out by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the way in which we do it and in which we assess the dose. We could make it more transparent in terms of how that assessment is done in the report, and we would be very willing to participate in that if it helps public perception.'

I then turned to our other witnesses, Natural Resources Wales, and asked,

'Can I just get a response from NRW on that?', to which John Wheadon, their permitting service manager, replied,

'Again, I would support the response from Cefas and we'll look at that.'

Now, I believe that the course of action that should have been followed at that point was to have conducted that further testing that I suggested, at depth, and in consultation with concerned parties in order to respond to public concerns. The fact that didn’t happen leads us to where we are today, with dredging happening out in the channel and concerned citizens seeing a Government that just hasn’t listened to them, despite options having been put on the table for trying to alleviate concerns.

Today, they see Government, through their amendment, removing most of the tabled motion, again refusing to engage in a process that could and should have been conducted months ago to seek more evidence and allay concerns. We will vote against that amendment. We’ll also vote against the second amendment on the advice of environmental campaigners who point out that there’s a technical issue with it. It calls for NRW to conduct an environmental impact assessment, but campaigners say it's not NRW's job or competence to carry out an EIA.

Of course, campaigners do want that assessment carried out. Despite the Cabinet Secretary for environment and rural affairs saying in a statement on 29 September 2017, and, again, I quote, that,

'Records show the applications for the disposal of material in Welsh waters took into account the overall EIA for the Hinkley Point C project', campaigners say courts have now proven that a separate EIA should be needed, as the overall general EIA doesn’t cover dredging. Without a specific EIA, they argue, you just can’t make a decision on whether to agree to or refuse a licence application.

Llywydd, I haven't gone today into the principle of how anything could be dumped quite so easily on Welsh land or in Welsh waters this easily, regardless of what that material is. I've raised that in the past, and perhaps others will comment on that during this debate. But, above all, today, this motion is about listening to people and recognising real concerns. That hasn’t happened, and I hope I’ve been able to highlight how a sensitive Government could have responded. This motion states that they should do so now by suspending the licence. The message is clear, and to all Members, including those on Labour benches, on the Government benches who have said that they agree and sympathise with the concerns of their constituents: vote for this motion today. 

The Llywydd (Elin Jones) took the Chair.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Amendment 1—Julie James

Delete all after point 1 and replace with:

2. Notes:

a)  under the terms of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (the London Convention, 1972), to which the UK is a signatory, only materials with de minimis levels of radioactivity may be considered for disposal to sea;

b)  the conservative generic radiological assessment, developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, is the internationally agreed method for testing for de minimis levels of radioactivity and this method was used in the determination of the Hinkley marine licence; 

c)  the evidence within the National Assembly Petitions Committee report that Natural Resources Wales made its marine licence determination based on expert advice, in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency procedures for radiological assessments;

d)  all tests and assessments concluded the sediment to be disposed of is within safe limits, poses no radiological risk to human health or the environment, and is safe and suitable to be disposed of at sea.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to instruct Natural Resources Wales to carry out further public engagement to explain the process and evidence to reassure the public.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 2, tabled in his name. Neil McEvoy.

Amendment 2—Neil McEvoy

In point 2, add as new sub-points:

take into account the information provided by Emeritus Professor Keith Barnham regarding cooling pond accidents at Hinkley Point A in the 1960s; and

instruct Natural Resources Wales to carry out a full environmental impact assessment on the effect on the Welsh coast, the coastal population and Welsh marine environment of the dumping of sediment from Hinkley in the Cardiff Grounds.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. If I were told to make up a story, I don't think I could make up something as unbelievable as this. The UK and Chinese Governments strike a deal with tens of billions of pounds, and as part of the deal they plan to dump 320,000 tonnes of mud from outside a nuclear power station off the coast of Wales without testing it properly. 

Many of us campaigned for years for this institution, because at times like this, we expected a Welsh Government to stand up for us. But what has Labour done? Want to dump your waste on us? No problem, fine. They've welcomed it. Let's for the moment forget about the potential health concerns and the lack of an environmental impact assessment. Why would you accept 320,000 tonnes of waste being dumped on your doorstep by your neighbour? Why would you do that?

On 20 June this year, Emeritus Professor Keith Barnham, Imperial College London, wrote to the Government to warn about the possible dangers with the mud from outside of Hinkley Point. Magnox Ltd have admitted there were cooling pond accidents in the 1960s with weapon-grade plutonium. This was new information and should have forced a rethink on the licence. In terms of safety, the Government has accepted the bare minimum. Every physicist I've spoken to says that in order to identify every kind of plutonium that you may find in such mud, there needs to be done three kinds of testing: alpha spectrometry, mass spectrometry and gamma spectrometry. This is just scientific fact—speak to the physicists—and it's being reckless to ignore this. Irresponsible. With respect, Cabinet Secretary, you don't know what you are doing.

We've had excuse after excuse that nothing can be done, that it's all the fault of Natural Resources Wales. In Wales, we have the only Government in the world that is unable to control the very agencies it has set up, and once again, through legal action by the campaigners, we've found out that it's not Natural Resources Wales who was ultimately responsible, but the Cabinet Secretary. The monumental incompetence and arrogance is staggering, and I say to every single Labour Member here today: people voted for you and they put their trust in you. Listen to them. Listen to your voters, and not the whip.

It was also established through legal action that there was no environmental impact assessment carried out for the dumping on the Cardiff Grounds and its aftermath. There was a 2,000-page document about the effect on the Bristol side, but virtually nothing about Wales. And let's flag up also that the Minister at the time, who decided not to have an environmental impact assessment, was a former lobbyist for the nuclear industry. Extraordinary—only in Wales. Only in Wales.

So, how can you allow the dumping of 320,000 tonnes of mud from outside a nuclear power station and not examine the effects on the local environment? The eyes of the world are on Cardiff today—this is an international campaign—and my amendment asks you to support an environmental impact assessment. Why would you vote against that? Forget the technicalities; let's get the assessment done. 

I'm going to quote Professor Keith Barnham, Imperial College London, now, a former particle physicist—we used to call them nuclear physicists. And he says the tests done on the Hinkley mud were done with gamma radiation detectors. Plutonium nuclei do not decay by emitting gamma rays, but rather by emitting alpha particles, for which the mud has not been tested.

You have a choice now—we all have a choice. This is the National Assembly for Wales. People vote for us to look after Wales, do things in their best interests and hold the Government to account. So, will you stand up for Wales today? Or will you let the nuclear industry dump all over our country?

We have to save the Bristol channel. Thank you.

I'll be very brief. I don't know if the mud is safe. It has been tested, and we've had the results of that testing. What I do know is that the public are not assured that it is safe.

EDF offered me a briefing three times last week. Each time I asked that the mud be made available to bona fide academics to re-test. Each time that request was ignored. I wish once again, in public, to request that EDF make that mud available to bona fide academics. Science is a wonderful thing. If two people test the same sample, they'll come out with the same results within the margin of error. Scientists don't make up results. It would destroy their credibility as scientists if they did make up results and those results were so out of sync with everybody else who is producing results. So, what we want is to make people believe that it's safe. Have a peer review. Everything is peer reviewed. Why can this not be? I think I'll ask again, and hope that EDF will make that mud available to bona fide academics to peer review it. If the results produced by Cefas are correct, and I have no reason to think they're not, then exactly the same results will be produced by every other scientist who tests it. So that, I think, might give more reassurance to the public than they have at the moment.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I just want to endorse some of the points that Rhun made in his opening address. I think the fact that Cefas and NRW have both said that they could be doing more work, and that they would be willing to do more work, underlines to me the fact that they do acknowledge that there is further work that could be done. The fact that the Government is turning its face away and keeping its head down and just continuing, to me raises some serious questions as to the willingness of Government to face up to the reality that there is more that should be done. The public reaction tells a story. It shows that there is real concern among the population, that there are doubts and that there are questions, and whilst those questions are not sufficiently answered, I would have thought that there is a duty somewhere to ensure that those issues are aired more effectively. Of course, whilst there are questions that remain unanswered, then the process should not proceed.

Now, I want to refer to two specific principles—the precautionary principle, and another principle where the polluter pays.

Jill Evans, the Plaid Cymru MEP, has spoken extensively about the precautionary principle, particularly in this context, actually. I went digging through some of the European Commission's communications, and we know that the precautionary principle aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision taking where there is an element of risk. Preventative decision taking—surely that chimes with the underpinning principles, for example, of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. It tells us that, where there is doubt, we have to err on the side of caution, and there are three specific principles that inform the precautionary principle. First of all, we have the fullest possible scientific evaluation; well, in the few minutes that we've been in this Chamber I think we've heard clearly that we haven't had that, as should be the case. Secondly, that an evaluation of the potential consequences of the action are undertaken; well, I'm not convinced, clearly, that that has happened sufficiently. And thirdly, that the participation of all interested parties in the study of precautionary measures—that everybody takes part in that process, and again, we're failing on that front as well. The burden of proof, as we've heard, needs to be on the developer. The public reaction, in my book, shows that we've failed on all of those counts.

And in relation to the polluter pays principle—and you could say that this is a different argument, but just as valid—what about remuneration? We know that this is intended to be dumped in Welsh waters. There's a landfill tax if you dump on land, so what happens in our seas? What if the sediment does, actually, lead to some environmental damage? It'll be a cost to Welsh Government, but, surely, shouldn't there be a payment of some sort of compensation? Shouldn't the polluter be liable in some way or other, and not just the Welsh taxpayer, potentially, picking up the pieces?

Somebody mentioned, or asked the question: why isn't this being dumped in the Thames? Well I know why—because it's politically unacceptable. So, why is it politically acceptable that this is dumped in Welsh waters? [Interruption.] Look, it's valid, it's valid. It is valid—of course it's valid. These are Welsh waters. There will be issues in future, we know there will be, there's bound to be, and people aren't convinced that all of these have been addressed.

And the final point that I'd like to make, in the 60 seconds that I have left, is, again, questions—. [Interruption.] No, I've just said, I've got 60 seconds and there's one more point I really need to make. [Interruption.] No, this is the most important point. It's about the relationship again—and I've raised this with you previously, Secretary—the relationship between Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales. We're told, in this context, Natural Resources Wales is independent, it's an arm's-length organisation, they are the experts, they tell us, and we cannot interfere. And then in other areas, which I touched upon last week, they make a decision, Government doesn't like the decision, you effectively issue a diktat, and that decision is overturned. It's pick and choose, isn't it? It's pick and choose in terms of the Government's relationship with Natural Resources Wales. Well, you've made the wrong choice this time, and you should tell everybody what that situation is and make the right decision. 

I'd like to start by drawing attention to a letter I've received from the town clerk of Barry Town Council. At an extraordinary meeting on 4 October, the council resolved to call upon the Welsh Government—and I quote—to publish more detailed evidence in response to concerns regarding risks to public health and the environment, including allowing for further testing in order to provide greater transparency; secondly, to instruct NRW to suspend the marine licence that enables disposal activity, carry out a full environmental impact assessment on the effect on the Welsh coast and Welsh marine environment of the dumping of sediment from Hinkley Point in the Cardiff Grounds, and to undertake a wide-ranging programme of engagement and consultation with local communities and stakeholders across south Wales. 

There was cross-party support, of course, at that Barry Town Council meeting. They were reflecting deep concerns about health safety and monitoring of the dumping of mud from Hinkley Point, and I'm pleased to have fulfilled their request to raise the council's strong objections to the proposed dumping of mud near the Vale coastline.

I've raised my concerns about Hinkley Point on a number of occasions in this Chamber, and I want to refer to the points that I made most recently. I asked a question on the business statement regarding the nature of the environmental impact assessment on Hinkley Point, in terms of mud concerns. And I understand that the main environmental impact assessment, of course, was undertaken by the UK Government to build the plant. But I did follow this up with a request for clarification on the Welsh Government's involvement and subsequent consideration of the EIA process, and the Cabinet Secretary responded to those points. 

I also raised, in the Petitions Committee's debate, concerns about what is considered to be an adequate sampling of deeper layers of mud. So, clearly, there is a great deal of public concern, and I'm aware that Richard Bramhall of the Low Level Radiation Campaign, and former member of the UK Government's committee examining radiation risks for internal emitters, voiced worries about the tests. So, this is an opportunity today to put those questions again on the record for the Government's response.

So, I do hold to these points that I've made and many have made in the Chamber, and I welcome this debate today. I'm concerned on behalf of the large numbers of constituents who've raised issues with me, and I know with colleagues, which have intensified over the past week. I think the point is that people aren't convinced by the statements made by NRW. They're not reassured by the evidence so far, and I do believe that a call for more than one source of evidence and further testing is understandable.

I believe that the Government amendment would only be meaningful, in terms of a recognition of these widespread public concerns, if we can have clarity about what would actually happen as result of instruction by the Welsh Government to NRW for further public engagement to explain the process. So, I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to agree to make a statement on the commitment that she would make instructing NRW to carry out further public engagement on the evidence that's been provided thus far, and this should include NRW committing to meet the public and to present scientific evidence. Will she confirm that she will report back to the Assembly on the actions taken by NRW as a result of this instruction by the Welsh Government and the outcome of the public engagement?

I recall the engagement I had as local councillor in the building of the Cardiff Bay barrage. As a result of widespread concerns and campaigns, we secured new safeguards with statutory commitments resulting in—just one example—groundwater surveys before and after the barrage was built. It is the assurance of a safeguard that we need here. There must be respect and recognition of our constituents and their concerns, and I trust the Cabinet Secretary will respect these points in the Government's response to the debate today. 

Thanks to the two Members for bringing today's debate, and also to Neil McEvoy who's been very active in campaigning on this issue. There has been an awful lot of public anxiety about this issue of materials being dumped in the Bristol channel, as we've heard today, yet again. We've had a petition that gained more than 7,000 signatures. We've had Members from all four parties in the Assembly raising concern over this. We now also have Friends of the Earth and Barry Town Council, which, as Jane Hutt said, had an extraordinary meeting to discuss this issue. They're now adding their voices to the controversy—among many others.

As I said when we debated this on a previous occasion, I'm no scientist, so I'm not qualified to make any kind of scientific judgment. It's Natural Resources Wales, or NRW, who seemingly have the environmental scientists. But unfortunately for NRW, they do not have the best record at selling their decisions to the general public. Earlier this year, there was a big panic over the flood relief scheme at Roath brook in Cardiff. We had people climbing up the trees to protest at what was going on. Now, this nuclear sludge controversy in the Bristol channel is turning into an even bigger public relations disaster. So, whatever the science of this is, NRW do need to do more to allay public anxieties and public fears. As they are not minded to do this, then the Welsh Government have to intervene to give us more detailed evidence and to suspend, in the meantime, NRW's marine licence.

So, UKIP supports today's motion and opposes Labour's amendment, which largely tells us that NRW's evidence is correct, although Labour do at least concede the need for NRW to better explain their decision to the public. Unfortunately, matters have moved beyond that now. We do need to see more evidence, so we oppose the Labour amendment today. We also support Neil McEvoy's amendment 3, which notes some of the alternative evidence and also calls for NRW to carry out a full environmental impact assessment. I do take on board Rhun's point that there may be a technical problem over who is responsible for the EIA, but I would like to make it clear that we do support the call for that EIA. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I wanted to speak in this debate because I've been contacted by constituents who have concerns. I think we enter and start a dangerous precedent if we begin questioning the views of scientific experts. I think we've seen that problem in our politics in recent times and I think it's becoming ever more prevalent. I think we must accept that the tests that took place in 2009, 2013 and 2017 were right to find there were no radiological risk to human health or the environment. But having said that—[Interruption.] I'll give way, yes.

I'm shocked to hear the Member talk about scientific evidence. I've just provided you with evidence. Professor Barnham wrote to the Minister on 20 June disclosing the accidents with weapon-grade plutonium. I will repeat it because it's worth repeating—only one kind of testing was done. If you do that testing, you're not going to be able to identify all kinds of plutonium. That's science. Speak to the physicists, they'll tell you.

If that's the case, then there's a valid question as to why he dropped the court case. Given that was crowdfunded, I think we should be able to see the legal advice that he received in the court case. [Interruption.] I know that he was recorded in the media as saying that the court case was dropped because he secured this debate. I don't think that's true. 

So, I'd like to move this on and talk about what I think the problem is, and why my constituents have expressed concerns to me. I've had letters, which I think have come, partly, through some of the hysteria that Neil McEvoy has generated. One letter says:

'Please do not support the dumping of nuclear waste. I believe there is a vote this week. Do not support the dumping of nuclear waste.'

This is not nuclear waste—this is moving mud from one part of the channel to the other.

To address Llyr Gruffydd's concerns: yes, there is an issue to be talked about—the jurisdiction and devolved powers—but that is not something that we can do anything about right now in this debate.

I think it is dangerous that we question, therefore, the views of experts. But what I would say is that there is clear evidence that members of the public have not been reassured, and this is a thread through what every Member who's spoken in this debate has said so far. There is clear evidence that those people, members of the public, who have represented their concerns to AMs have said that they are not convinced by what has been presented. And I think, in this case, Natural Resources Wales—yes, they have fallen far short, and I back the things that Jane Hutt has said. [Interruption.] No, because I don't think that the Government has the power—. Rhun ap Iorwerth is saying, 'Well, back the motion'. Well, the motion is not in the Government's gift, and that would actually move the Government into unlawful territory. That is not a precedent that we want to set in these circumstances. I disagree with Rhun. I would say that the Government's amendment does effect the reassurance that we need if it is followed through in the way that Jane Hutt has said—[Interruption.] I won't take another intervention—and I think that is key.

The Cabinet Secretary has a duty now, because I don't think the Government has done enough to reassure—the Cabinet Secretary has a duty now to provide that reassurance in her closing speech today. I've had conversations with her about this and I'm confident that she can do that, provided, then, that that information is presented to the public and done in a rigorous form, in which scientists are able to speak directly to members of the public. I will then be able to reassure those constituents who have contacted me.

I would like to thank Rhun and Darren for tabling this important debate today, and to thank Neil for his efforts to ensure the sediment being dumped poses no risk to human health or our environment. The Hinkley waste may be being dumped in Neil's region, but it also affects my region, home to some of the world's top beaches and a haven for marine flora and fauna. For several weeks now I've been inundated with e-mails regarding this.

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 is not classed as radioactive under UK law. However, there are concerns that the testing methodology was not sufficiently robust. The testing methodology only looked at the top 1 m of sediment, and only looked at gamma particles. [Interruption.] Can I finish first, Jenny, and then I will, if I'm within time?

Research conducted elsewhere shows that higher concentrations of radionuclides are found at depths greater than 1 m. 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, nor were the other 50 radionuclides known to be present in discharge from these old nuclear power plants.

As Neil McEvoy's amendment highlights, there were incidents in the 1960s that saw radioactive discharges into the cooling ponds at the Hinkley plant, and several independent researchers believe that harmful radionuclides are contained deep within the sediment.

I understand that the Welsh Government is convinced of the safety of this material, and that it is sincere. However, a large number of Welsh residents are not convinced, and we owe it to them to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this material is safe before dumping it on our coastline. 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 to humans, wildlife and the environment then, by all means, grant the licence. But, until then, we risk doing untold damage to our ecosystem and threaten the viability of some of the world’s top beaches, like Rhossilli and Three Cliffs bay.

The Welsh Government has to put Wales first and insist that more robust testing is carried out, and I urge Members to support the motion and support amendments for the people of Wales. Thank you.

I, too, have had plenty of constituents writing to me concerned about this issue. They have been persuaded that the construction mud from the Severn estuary is radioactive simply because of its location next to the former Hinkley A power station. There is absolutely no evidence, in my mind, that this is the case, because the reason why Cefas has been appointed is because they're not a Government department; they are the experts for freshwater science and research. 

Will you give way? 

No. No, I won't, thank you.

For applied marine and freshwater science. So, you have to understand that these are the go-to experts that UK Government, international governments, non-governmental organisations—. They are the people who understand this. And to indicate that they haven't tested for all the long list of metals that Caroline has listed is not credible, because, clearly, they were going to be looking for— [Interruption.] They were looking for—[Interruption.] They were looking for all these metals and they were unable to find them. There's no—. Unless they introduce these metals after the event, they can't possibly be seeing things that aren't there. 

Now, in response to Llyr as to why the Cardiff Grounds is being used, it's because it's environmentally the most sustainable place to dispose of it. Sending it all the way to the Thames, you know, expends resources that are not necessary. Cardiff Grounds is the go-to place for disposal of construction waste in this area, simply because it's on the estuary and the tide moves the material on. So, there's absolutely no reason at all why we should be disposing of it in Scotland, in the Thames, or anywhere else. This is the most environmentally appropriate place to be disposing of construction waste. I do not—[Interruption.] I do not understand: if, as Mike Hedges says, scientists don't make up results, then why would Cefas be making up the results when their international reputation would be at stake? I think it's completely not credible.  

I don't think anybody's suggesting that results have been made up. What the campaigners have said all along is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and what I suggested in the Petitions Committee, as I said, was, in consultation with campaigners, let's decide on a set of parameters that can be followed, including testing—different testing, perhaps—at depth, in order to reach a conclusion that people agree on at the outset. There is a clear lack of confidence, rather than a lack of trust in individual scientists. It's building that confidence that we need to do. 

Okay. I understand that there's certainly a public relations problem, in that so many people have been convinced that what is being disposed of in the Cardiff Grounds has some sort of radioactivity beyond what is present outside this building or anywhere else where we reside. 

The fact is that they have tested these samples on three different occasions—2009, 2013, 2017. They have taken multiple samples and they have simply been unable to find any of the materials that could be of cause for concern. Were there to be nuclear materials present, they simply would not be able to dispose of them in the Cardiff sand, because that is not what's in the licence. You know, we simply have to accept that Cefas have done their jobs on three separate occasions, and it is most distressing that some people who are anti-nuclear campaigners, as indeed am I, have whipped up—[Interruption.] We have had whipped up concerns about something that isn't present. And therefore we should be supporting scientifically based results and doing much better at communicating to the public that this should not be a cause of any concern.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate. I of course recognise and acknowledge the level of concern around this matter, which remains since the debate last May. This is despite the Petitions Committee report setting out the evidence and scientific advice on this matter. I've listened to the points raised today and thank Members for their contributions.

Firstly, I would like to respond to the assertion made in this Chamber suggesting that my actions are unlawful. Welsh Ministers and Natural Resources Wales have acted lawfully. Decisions were properly taken and have never been the subject of any legal challenge. I want to make it very clear that the decisions taken by the Welsh Ministers and NRW throughout the determination process are lawful decisions and remain entirely valid.

The UK is a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. The London convention, as it's called, states that only materials with de minimus or very low levels of radioactivity may be considered for disposal to sea. All marine licence applications are considered against Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, and the habitats regulations, which all provide robust regimes for considering whether an activity should proceed by virtue of its potential impact on the environment, human health and other uses of the sea.

With regard to the calls on Welsh Ministers to suspend the marine licence, it is important to be aware that such a step could only be considered if the conditions set out in section 72 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 could be met.

Minister, will you give way?

Presiding Officer, I'm not taking any interventions. Everyone's had their chance to speak, and I want to set out the facts.

The conditions include there being a breach of licence provision, changes in the scientific views or the circumstances in relation to the environment and human health. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the conditions set out in section 72 are met. To suspend the licence in such circumstances would be against the law. We can and must only act on evidence. We are at risk of setting dangerous precedents if we stop listening to our experts.

Secondly, I would like to respond to the concerns around testing, assessment and licensing procedures. Independent expert advice was received from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. Cefas are internationally recognised experts in marine, chemical and radiological analysis. Sampling of the material to be disposed of and associated testing of it was carried out in 2009, 2013 and 2017. At-depth samples were taken in 2009. Additional depth samples were not required in 2013 or 2017 as, based on expert advice, the material at depth would not have changed. I note that, for this particular disposal application, given its location to Hinkley Point, Cefas carried out a conservative generic radiological assessment, developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is the internationally agreed method for testing for levels of radioactivity that determine whether the London convention requirements are met.

Points have also been raised about historic issues with cooling ponds and the production of weapons-grade plutonium at the Hinkley site. This has understandably prompted further concern, but I will say again that the test results on this marine licence show that the dredged material is within safe limits and poses no radiological risk to human health or the environment and is safe and suitable to be disposed of at sea.

Only certain types of projects require an environmental impact assessment. Nuclear power stations are an example of a type of project that does require an EIA, and, as such, EDF produced an EIA for the Hinkley C project. Other types of projects don't require EIAs, or the need for an EIA is determined by the appropriate authority on a case-by-case basis. The decision was taken in 2012 to screen the disposal activity out of the requirement for an EIA. Disagreeing with the decision does not make it wrong. It was a lawful decision. A key point to note is that this non-EIA approach does not mean a full and thorough environment assessment was not undertaken. A public consultation on the marine licence application was carried out in September 2012 for 28 days, in line with the standard procedure for most marine licence applications. Post-licence monitoring and any actions to be taken as a consequence of the survey findings is required, in line with condition 9.1 of the marine licence, for the disposal activity.

The third theme I want to cover is the need for public reassurance and the campaign to suspend the marine licence. I fully acknowledge this matter has become an issue for many people in communities across Wales, and there has been a great deal of media coverage. Whilst I, of course, respect the right to protest, I'm very concerned by the ongoing scaremongering and lies being circulated as part of the campaign against this marine licence, which has resulted in unnecessary public concern for the people of Wales. Furthermore, I was alarmed by the call to blockade these works as part of the campaign. This is dangerous and risks public safety. Against the tide of misinformation, and to reassure the public, I asked Natural Resources Wales to write to AMs and local authorities to set out the facts in order to dispel myths and untruths and ensure all information was available on their website. However, this week, I have again met with NRW and written to them using my powers under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, setting out my expectations on further engagement and communication with the public. I hope this additional information will help Assembly Members again reassure their constituents and also members of the public. And, in answer to Jane Hutt's specific question, I'll be very happy to update Members when I receive further information.

The reason I cannot support the original motion today is because this licence has been granted lawfully, assessments have been carried out robustly, and the evidence has been assessed by experts and in line with international standards. The evidence and decision-making process has been made available, and there are no grounds for further testing or suspension of the licence. NRW will undertake wider engagement and targeted communications. I also believe it is deeply disappointing there are some who are deliberately seeking to mislead the public for their own political gain and misrepresenting the facts. [Interruption.]

Allow the Minister to continue now. 

As I said, I am not giving way. You all had the opportunity. I am putting forward the facts. [Interruption.]

You can't walk in during a debate and start shouting. Can you allow the Minister to complete her contribution? She's not taking—she has said that she is not taking interventions. The Minister to complete her—[Interruption.]

The leader of Plaid Cymru hasn't even been in the Chamber for most of this debate. 

You are correct—

I have listened—[Interruption.] I made it very clear at the beginning of my speech. I have listened to—[Interruption.]

You're correct in that decision, and you can continue now with the rest of your contribution as you have said that you are not taking interventions. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I urge Members here today to support science, not scaremongering, and the need to get the message out to our constituents, the people of Wales: this disposal activity is safe and there is no need for concern.

I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I thank everyone who's contributed to this debate this afternoon? It has captured the public's concern, this particular issue has, and I find myself on the line, as it were, with people who wouldn't naturally align themselves with a Conservative politician and, indeed, someone who does support the building of Hinkley Point and other nuclear power stations to meet our energy needs. But I do recognise the genuine concerns—the genuine concerns—that constituents and on a wider basis have expressed over this particular issue, and I do regret that it is the opposition parties that have had to come together to put this motion down today rather than the Government leading on that. We have been back for nearly four weeks now, and the Government could have led on this issue and actually put some of those assurances that were required by the public and those members of public in the gallery who have come here today, but they have not done that, and we have had to take the lead on this particular issue.

I think I'm correct in saying, Presiding Officer, that this motion would not lead to an unlawful act, as was introduced into the debate by the Cabinet Secretary and also by the Member for Caerphilly, because otherwise it would not be accepted, because you can't put a motion down that then would lead to an unlawful act. I believe I'm correct in saying that, and that's an important consideration to be considered here when voting tonight. And I do pass comment on the comments from the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, who I wholesomely support in conveying her constituent's views into this Chamber, but she read our motion out. She read the motion out from Barry Town Council, who felt so compelled to participate in this debate that they had an emergency meeting and they conveyed their sentiments via that letter. You will now, if you take the Government whip, vote against the motion that you were talking to in your contribution. So, I do hope that you will reflect on the position that you have tried to convey in the Chamber here tonight with the way that you might vote, when the vote is called in about five or 10 minutes' time. 

The opener of the debate, Rhun ap Iorwerth, clearly identified the work that the Petitions Committee has undertaken in this particular area, and he introduced the point about NRW and Cefas saying that they would welcome the opportunity to actually undertake further tests—further tests at depth—to reassure people who have concerns about what sediment might be lurking below the test levels that they've undertaken to date. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. That seems perfectly reasonable, that does, because when you look at the widespread concerns that are out there, if people require that information, they should have that information, and it is our role as politicians to make sure that information is secured. As I say, I'm talking as someone who actually supports the construction of Hinkley Point and other nuclear power stations to meet our energy needs.

But, Cabinet Secretary, I would hope that you will reflect on what has been said here tonight, and you will reflect on allowing your amendment to go through to shoot this motion down, because you have the votes here tonight, you do— looking at the Chamber, you clearly have the votes. But I cannot see anything unreasonable in the motion that is before us here tonight. It is merely calling for wider consultation—and you have recognised in your own amendment that NRW have not undertaken that consultation—and, in the meantime, suspending the licence so that further testing can be undertaken. As I understand it, the licence continues until March next year. They are halfway through the dredging already, so there would be plenty of time to undertake the testing and satisfy the widespread concern, and if that testing proves positive, they could continue with that testing. Why will you not sanction that? As Llyr Gruffydd said, when he talked about your intervention over shooting on public land, you were prepared to direct NRW to do that, you were, and we disagree over that point. [Interruption.] Why will you not lead on this issue, Cabinet Secretary? We are not seeing that. [Interruption.]

Now, the Labour back bench can shout. I'll gladly take an intervention if someone wants to make the intervention. I am merely stating what has happened in this place over the last couple of weeks since we've come from recess. I am merely asking a perfectly reasonable question about why that at-depth testing cannot be undertaken, as evidenced in the Petitions Committee. [Interruption.] I'll take the intervention.

It seems to me that they do a drilling down to 2m; they then do a further drilling down to 4.7m and they can't find any radioactive material. If they go even deeper, they're not going to find any material that wasn't already detectable at 4.7m. It's just completely ridiculous that they're going to go down further, because it's only on the surface that you're most likely to find any material, and they couldn't find any.

With the greatest respect, I will defer to the expert evidence that's been given, as introduced into this debate to the Petitions Committee from NRW and Cefas, who said that they were prepared to undertake that if they were instructed. I respect the position you occupy in this institution, Jenny, but I would defer to the expert evidence here, and I believe that testing should be undertaken. [Applause.] Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Just to add weight to what you're saying, I remind the Chamber that this debate happened in the Petitions Committee on 9 January this year. Just imagine what that time could have been used in doing, in eight or nine months, in doing the re-testing that the experts, the scientists, said they thought was 'a very good suggestion'—I quote. [Applause.]

The timeline has been there, Cabinet Secretary. It is for you on those benches to decide whether you want to lead on this issue, or if you just want to shut the door on the powers that you have available to you, and address the wider concerns of the public in the gallery and the public around the south Wales coast. They can have answers; they should have answers; and you should deliver that, Cabinet Secretary. Vote for this motion tonight. Withdraw your amendment, so that we can make progress on this issue. People deserve that; let's make progress. [Applause.]

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this motion until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.