Vol. 397 No. 2
16 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for the Marine , in light of the Oslo Commission meeting in Dublin in June 1989, which proposed to phase out dumping in the North Sea of industrial waste by 31 December 1989, if, in the context of the Irish Presidency, he will condemn the policy of the British Government to continue to dump waste in the North Sea; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
(Limerick West): The decision by the Oslo Commission last June was to cease the dumping of industrial waste in the North Sea, 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 UK dumping proposals were discussed at a special meeting in London on 14 February last. The UK indicated their intention to issue permits to dump by virtue of (i) and (ii). Some other member states of the Commission questioned the scientific justification for the dumping. Ireland adopted the position that it would be obliged to object to any future proposals for the dumping of waste in the North Sea unless there was ample and concrete evidence of positive action to implement alternative methods of disposal on land.
Deputy Quinn in the course of his question asked the Minister to condemn the policy and that was the easiest word to use because to object would not be strong enough in this instance. Will the Minister consider taking stronger action rather than objecting to the policy? Objecting is an easy way out.
(Limerick West): At the meeting in London on 14 February, Ireland pressed for and received commitments to alternative methods.
Will the Minister agree that the press interview by the British Secretary of State following that meeting was deplorable? Will the Minister accept that we, a neighbouring country, are obliged to condemn outright the attitude of the Secretary of State in his pronouncements following that meeting? Will the Minister accept that they were out of line with the views of other member states at that meeting? What the Secretary of State said was deplorable.
(Limerick West): I am not responsible for statements by the Secretary of State.
I accept that but the Minister of State could condemn what he said.
(Limerick West): I have outlined our position in regard to this.
It is a very milk and water position.
Is it not the case, notwithstanding what the Minister said about our objecting to future dumping, that in this case the Irish Government adopted a totally supine attitude and sold out our EC partners who clearly condemned the decision of the British Government to allow dumping in the North Sea? The Irish Government, in this year of all years, the year of the famous Green Presidency, have failed to support our European partners in putting pressure on the British Government to stop the dumping. The Minister's reply did not refer to the dumping that had been authorised by the British Government but to the future.
(Limerick West): I should like to refute what the Deputy has stated. I should like to remind him that the points raised by member states were taken on board by the UK delegation. I should like to tell the Deputy that the Netherlands and Norway expressed strong opposition; that Sweden expressed moderate opposition; that Belgium and Finland opposed but were conciliatory; that Denmark and Iceland had no comment to make, and that Ireland pressed for and received a commitment to alternative methods.
