Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Connolly.

I, like my colleagues on the Opposition side, am happy to address this issue and this timely debate, given developments in Korea, Iran and elsewhere on the issue of testing and the related issue of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is also appropriate that this Parliament shows a lead in this area. We have a proud history on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in particular, in that our Government, in the person of Frank Aiken, was the first signatory in recognition of the good work we had done in promoting the issue.

The Green Party would wish to support the Government in this proposed legislation but also urge it to go further and engage in real diplomatic effort with countries well disposed towards us — our near neighbours Britain and France and our neighbour the United States on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean — who need to hear a message of sanity that there is an alternative approach. We should not spare resources or effort in that regard because we are faced with an issue of considerable import, concern and security.

Having listened to Deputy Michael D. Higgins, I am drawn to recent comments by the Kerryman, John Moriarty, whom I suppose I would call a philosopher. On some issues like this, he questions whether we are actually homo sapiens, whether we are able to step back and, using reason and understanding, come by agreement to an approach which saves ourselves from stepping over a brink, in this case into nuclear conflagration. That is a matter which is at issue and of concern at present, perhaps more so now than for the past 20, 25 or 30 years. A recent UN report states that we are on the point of the erosion of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which could become irreversible and result in a cascade in the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. I read that with real concern.

It seems clear the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was a well struck agreement between the then nuclear powers and those countries which did not have access to nuclear weapons. In return for the nuclear weapon-holding countries withdrawing, under Article 6, from the proliferation of those weapons and engaging in a process of dismantling the weapons, access to nuclear power would be allowed to other countries, which did not then have nuclear weapons but which, under Article 4, were given the right to use nuclear fuel for domestic power generation rather than weapons multiplication purposes. It is clear that that deal is on the point of being broken down.

First, the reaction of our friends in the United States to the reviews of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapon, particularly the 13 conditions set out in the 2000 review, can only be seen as one of a state which is not in compliance, support and accord with the will existing across the board in this House on the nuclear proliferation issue. The 2002 US nuclear posture review, which looked at their development of new additional nuclear weapons including smaller bunker bombs, clearly goes against the intent and spirit of that proliferation theory in terms of halting the development of new weapons and reducing, rather than increasing, the number of weapons.

The US position in support of bringing India into the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, despite the fact that India has avowedly developed the weapons, can only be seen as putting commercial or other strategic interests ahead of the central interests in terms of whether we allow the proliferation. That breach of faith, with the contract which is involved in that proposed deal with India, is a fundamental breach with the intent and purposes of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

In its characterisation of the entire debate on those countries it calls "rogue" states, such as Iran and North Korea, the US has in a sense boxed itself into a corner, where the only position available is to disarm or dismantle the nuclear faclities or opt for military strikes. It is almost impossible, as we have seen, to police effectively what is happening in a country developing nuclear power and discern whether it is going further. Indeed, one could state that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons allows countries like North Korea to develop nuclear power to a certain extent, opt out of the treaty and then, within a short space of time as we have seen in recent weeks, announce the development of a nuclear weapons capability and engage in testing material. The ability of Iran to abide to the letter of the law by the conditions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons will not stop it developing the enrichment of materials, which would allow it also develop a nuclear facility. The US Government's reaction to and position on that does not hold sway because the US itself is in breach of the 13 conditions set out by international agreement to look after its side of the bargain.

What is needed here is the sort of independent force that a country like Ireland can provide in recognising the insanity and, in many instances, the injustice of what is happening. Injustice may be the wrong word but it would be that used by an Iranian citizen, who is looking on at a world order in which our neighbour, Britain, wants to develop its nuclear capability for both commercial energy and weapons production. It wants to develop Trident and other nuclear weapons as well as nuclear power plants while, at the same time, its representatives are telling the Iranians they cannot develop a nuclear programme for fear they will produce nuclear weapons. An Iranian would ask who are the British to say, on the one hand, Iran shall not develop weapons, while they spend billions doing just that. Who are the British to say Iran cannot develop a nuclear industry on that basis of a fear it will produce weapons when they are developing nuclear facilities? Calder Hall, the first British nuclear power plant, was built specifically to develop nuclear weapons and commercial energy production at that plant was a secondary thought.

It is easy to envisage a world order developing where a state such as Iran will say that if it cannot have access to the West's nuclear energy capability, western countries will not have access to its oil supply. We know what that would do to the price of oil and the world economy. The current boxing off of positions, where the debate is narrowed to a battle between the axis of evil and the axis of good, is insane. It is as clear as day to an independent neutral state such as Ireland that there is insanity and madness on both sides. There is no justification, cause or rational explanation for Britain, which should meet its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and dismantle its weapons, to head in the opposite direction to protect a strategic role globally by deploying the latest, stronger, more destructive weapons. That way lies madness. The British are not being sapient in developing our future.

Increasingly, a global collective approach to energy production is the only way to go for two main reasons. Two scares have occurred in my lifetime. I grew up in the shadow of the Cuban missile crisis when there was a rational fear in our society regarding a nuclear holocaust. Climate change is a similar new fear. It is almost November and the temperature is 20°C. While the current temperatures cannot be extrapolated out, I am afraid of the global heating that is taking place and of the future for my children. The only response to that can be a global, collective, controlled, rationing system, which reduces our use of carbon to bring us to a point where we do not go below a trigger point for global temperatures, which would result in catastrophic climate change. This is the only threat to mankind on a par with the nuclear threat. Global multilateral co-operation is needed on climate change which, by definition, implies global co-operation on energy production because energy emissions are causing climate change. For that reason, we need to work with countries such as Iran, and even North Korea, because it is in all our interests to formulate a global response to such change. That cannot be done if countries are fighting with each other about whether they have nuclear power or nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power is a solution to the energy crisis. It has been estimated by David Goodstein, professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology, who is an eminent physicist in this area, that if the use of fossil fuels were to be replaced by nuclear power, 10,000 of the largest nuclear power stations in existence would be required. That cannot be done on the basis that they are only built in wealthy countries and that countries in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia cannot build them because this is an energy future for rich people. Global agreement on energy production will not be reached through such a policy. If 10,000 nuclear power stations were built, the risk of a plant producing plutonium for weapons or the risk of an accident would be too high. In addition, the proliferation of nuclear fission material would present a danger. Such a system needs to be dismantled and an alternative system developed. The urgency attaching to the Manhattan project to create a nuclear weapon for the purpose of the time should attach to the creation of an alternative, renewable, energy efficient, sustainable energy approach. That cannot happen if we are globally divided and fighting over the issue of whether different states have nuclear weapons.

The peak in global oil production will occur in the next decade. That will have major consequences and, therefore, the issue must be addressed now. The geopolitical reality, however, is two thirds of the world's oil reserves are in the Middle East but Europe and America are engaged in a dispute with Iran over whether it is developing nuclear weapons. They cannot get into a battle with such states on the nuclear issue given co-operation will be needed on oil supply. One of the ways to resolve this difficult conundrum, given that nobody wants countries such as Iran to create nuclear weapons, is to agree proper test ban treaties, which will ensure no state develops these technologies. That is why I welcome the Government's nuclear test ban. Why will the American Government not do so? The Americans are seeking to develop new test systems. That way lies madness. How can they push for the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear system or action to be taken against the North Koreans for nuclear testing when they are breaching the nuclear proliferation treaty by undertaking their own tests? It is all very well and good to take on North Korea and Iran but the Americans, British and French need to put their house in order. That means following the example of this House in signing a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

If Ireland is taking an independent, appropriate stance in the tradition of Frank Aiken on foreign policy, it behoves us to apply it to other aspects of our domestic policy and that includes appropriate monitoring of what is happening in our airports, where we can have control over the use or development of weapons. If states say they must use Shannon Airport for certain purposes, that is fine but there is no reason we should fail to check such flights to establish the cargo and the military purpose. Ireland needs to be strong on that and on an international scheme. We should ask other states to stop this madness before it goes too far. There is no reason, as Deputy Michael D. Higgins stated, for having 20,000 nuclear weapons operable and ready to go on the planet and there is every reason to reverse the proliferation of such weapons, which would result in resources being deployed in areas they are needed.

The UK is investing in a new Trident nuclear weapons system using its military budget, which is approximately Stg£48 billion. It is running out of oil and gas but it has been spending money on the military like kings. Such funding will not be available in another 20 years. Where will it obtain the money for its defence budget? British officials would be wiser spending the money they have set aside for nuclear weapons on organising its housing stock for the new energy future and on international negotiations to persuade the Americans, French and others that their supposed security system and Security Council are not secure because they do not work. It leaves us all exposed to the possibility of a rogue state or a rogue terrorist in this climate of distrust, double standards and saying one thing while doing another using a nuclear weapon. We will then be in a difficult position. It is not too late to reverse this and begin a sensible strategy. The Bill is one small step in the right direction.

See this speech in context