Vol. 395 No. 6
15 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for the Marine the reason Ireland did not, with West Germany, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, protest against the dumping of toxic waste in the North Sea; and his views on whether this weakens Ireland's case when it looks for European support in relation to Sellafield.
40 Mr. Currie asked the Minister for the Marine the reason for his acceptance of the British Government's decision to dump 49,000 tonnes of chemical waste in the North Sea despite the fact that the Governments of West Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have all lodged objections; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
44 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for the Marine the reason the Government did not object to the dumping into the North Sea of certain wastes; the way in which this can be reconciled with the green term of the European Presidency; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 40 and 44 together.
The procedures for the regulation of dumping at sea in the North-East Atlantic are governed by the Oslo Convention (its full title is the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft) to which Ireland is a contracting party. Last June the Commission met in Dublin and adopted a decision to cease the dumping of industrial waste in the North Sea by 31 December 1989, and in the rest of the Convention area by 31 December 1995, unless it could be shown that: (i) there were no practical alternatives for disposal on land, and (ii) the waste caused no harm to the marine environment.
The commission's decision incorporated a procedure known as the Prior Justification Procedure (PJP). This procedure obliges contracting parties which intend to issue a licence for the disposal of industrial waste at sea to circulate details of the waste to other contracting states. Other contracting states may lodge objections but any objections must be based on scientific evidence.
Details of the UK licensing proposals were sent to my Department in September and October 1989, and were examined by the Department's scientific adviser in the light of these criteria already mentioned viz. at (i) and (ii). My Department's scientific evaluation showed that there were no alternatives available at present for disposing of this waste on land, and that there was no harm to the marine environment, given the nature of the waste i.e. effluent from the manufacture of anti-allergy and anti-asthma drugs, paracetamol and an antioxidant for soap and paint manufacture, and the method of disposal.
The countries objecting to the proposal are all countries bordering the North Sea.
The question of European support in relation to Sellafield should be addressed to my colleague, the Minister for Energy.
I thank the Minister for his reply. In relation to the Convention which he has mentioned, would he agree that exception is allowed where it can be shown by what is described as a competent international organisation that no harm is caused to the marine environment? Would he, therefore, tell me what competent international organisation was able to satisfy the Irish Government in this respect but was unable to satisfy at least five other European Governments, particularly in circumstances where the Irish Government have a particular responsibility in relation to Sellafield and to the Irish Sea and North Sea? I further ask the Minister, does this saga not underline the necessity for the establishment of a Europe-wide environmental protection agency which would prevent dumping unilaterally by one state particularly in the face of reservations by others?
As I indicated in my reply, two conditions of the procedure known as PJP are that there are no practical alternatives for disposal on land and that the waste causes no harm to the marine environment. I had this question thoroughly investigated by a scientist in my Department and would not take any action without solid scientific advice. I am totally en rapport with the five other governments as far as this type of dispossal is concerned. Only three companies in this country are involved in this type of dumping and one of them will have before the end of this year — they have until 1995 — put in place a plant for the disposal of waste on land. The other two are moving in that direction. Of course, we are urging the United Kingdom also to see to it that this practice continues. In regard to the fourth point the Deputy made, inevitably a Euro convention will be put in place. The fact that the Oslo Commission took the steps it did at its meeting in Dublin is an indication that it is a Euro matter in the broadest possible sense, that is to say, incorporating countries other than the Twelve of the Community.
Would the Minister state if he received any representations from the five states who objected to this dumping and can he see the implications of our refusing to go along with these countries? Furthermore what will happen the next time toxic waste is dumped in the North Atlantic? We will kick up a big row and will look to West Germany, Denmark and other countries for their support. I wonder what kind of answer we will get.
I appreciate Deputy Garland's concern but let me say to the House that the North Sea is a particularly bad place as far as pollution is concerned. The countries around the North Sea have particularly bad consciences about this pollution; it is not necessarily as a result of dumping but pollution caused by dumping will not aid that position. As President of the Council of Fisheries Ministers I am aware of the impact this is having on the fisheries. I am aware, for example, that haddock stocks are practically wiped out as a result of pollution caused by the dumping of industrial effluent and sewage by very strong heavily industrialised countries. However, I want to assure the Deputies who put down the questions and the House that my Department are particularly sensitive and will take action accordingly on these matters.
While I am, of course, satisfied that the official in the Minister's Department to whom he has referred is very good at his job, he does not come under the category of competent international organisation. Will the Minister——
It is a convention of this House that we do not reflect upon officials. The Minister, and the Minister only, is responsible.
I was praising the official. I wish to ask the Minister again what competent international organisation told him that the dumping of 40,000 tonnes of this type of waste in the North Sea was not bad for the marine environment? Furthermore, would he not agree that on the next occasion when complaints are likely to be made, particularly in relation to Sellafield, as a result of this experience the finger is likely to be pointed at us by other European Governments who will say "you did not co-operate when we expected your co-operation the last time"?
The Deputy will agree there is a big difference between the refuse of anti-asthma drug-making and what is coming out of Sellafield into the Irish Sea. I am very confident that the scientist who advised me is a man of international standing. I am not talking about an international grouping of any kind, but he is a man of international standing.
He is not an international organisation.
A final question from Deputy Garland.
The Minister has made no effort to answer my question. I am afraid I will have to ask it again.
Repetition is not in order, Deputy. It is luxury we cannot afford at Question Time.
Would the Minister please answer my supplementary question? If he wants me to repeat it I will do so. Will I repeat it to the Minister?
It is the Chair who will decide on that.
I will facilitate the Deputy.
Has the Minister received any representations from the Governments of West Germany, Norway and so on who objected? I would have assumed they would have looked to us for support. The point I am making is that the next time toxic waste is dumped on our doorstep in the North Atlantic we will go to these countries to look for their support.
The Deputy is repeating himself.
I can give a guarantee to the Deputy that we will be looking for support. There is no evidence on my file that we received any representations from the countries mentioned in the question.
I now come to deal with Private Notice Questions.
