asked the Minister for Transport and Power if the Irish Government agreed to the OECD proposal to dump 6,700 tonnes of nuclear waste in the north eastern Atlantic in June and July; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I am advised by the Nuclear Energy Board that this particular operation represents no hazard to this country.

The arrangements for the disposal of low level radioactive waste in the North Atlantic were approved by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development after discussions on the subject in which this country participated. This operation will be carried out as in previous years under the close supervision of international escorting officers designated by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD, one of whom will be nominated by this country. The operation will be in accordance with the principles of the London Convention on the prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Waste and other Matter, and will take place at a site which fulfills the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the purpose of this convention. The site is, in fact, approximately equi-distant from Ireland, Spain, France and Britain.

What policy, if any, have our Government in relation to the dumping of nuclear energy waste off our shores? What is our stated position?

We signed the London Convention which is an international convention which oversees the dumping of nuclear waste. We are represented on the energy agency of the OECD who are dumping in this case. Our policy is that if our nuclear energy board, the advisers to the Government, advised us that it was unsafe we would not agree to it. In this instance the Nuclear Energy Board are satisfied that it presents absolutely no hazard.

Did the Nuclear Energy Board come to that conclusion from their own surveys and examinations or are they relying on guarantees given by the OECD? Have they satisfied themselves from their own research and their policy position?

Yes.

What research have they done?

They would have done this in conjunction with the OECD who are part of an international organisation who seek to find places where it is safe to dump this material. Our Nuclear Energy Board would be represented on that with officers from my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. They are concerned to see that any site where dumping is allowed does not present a hazard.

The Minister will recognise that this place has been designated a safe dumping place by the OECD but if by chance it turned out to be unsafe it would have the most terrible consequences for us particularly in view of where it is and of the prevailing currents. Would that not indicate that it is desirable that we in our own independent right be clearly informed and have a comprehensive policy in relation to dumping in that area?

In fact, the site is marginally nearer Spain and France than it is to us.

What about the currents?

If there is a danger, and I do not agree that there is, from any site chosen anywhere we should be concerned anyway. These international agencies chose these sites because they are safe. Whether they are off Japan, Brazil or Ireland if they are safe they are safe. If they are unsafe, we do not want to come to any arrangement.

My concern is that our policy on this is guided by the standards of OECD or international organisations; we do not have separate research facilities.

The very purpose of joining these organisations or agencies is to ensure that the knowledge and research available to them is also available to us. If we have to set up policing authorities for their policing authorities, we are multiplying agencies to an unnecessary degree.

Next question, No. 21.

We are the ones who might suffer.

Question No. 21.

No, we are not. I think it is a little irresponsible of the Deputy to suggest that OECD and the international agencies attached to it would put this country at risk.

I have called the next question on a number of occasions and I must ask that the Chair be obeyed. Question No. 21.