Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this legislation, which will belatedly bring us to the point where we are signatories to the treaty. This is our way of contributing. I know that we are not a nuclear power, nor should we ever be one. Some have argued that we should have a debate on nuclear energy but as a spokesperson in the energy and communications area, I believe that since we are not going to become a nuclear-based power, we should not waste our energy on such a debate. There are only so many ways to say "No". What part of "No" can people not understand? Our energy requirements should never be dependent on nuclear energy for a number of reasons. First, there was a serious accident in Chernobyl. Many people have concerns about those nuclear installations which are close to this country and potential damage from them. The Chernobyl accident was far away and its effects took two weeks to get here but they arrived with no difficulty at all. There is a lesson to be learned, which is that we do not require that source of energy.

We must develop other sources. We have the time and impetus to do so, and now is the time to act. We have a responsibility to replace imported fuel and energy with a source that is indigenous. That will occupy our minds for some time, but it will be well worthwhile. It is happening slowly. In the end it will be positive, constructive and important.

Before I move on to the Bill proper, I note much has been said on the energy requirements throughout Europe and the European energy grid. Very little has been said on the degree to which this relies on nuclear energy. There is significant reliance in France and the Scandinavian countries, and the UK will become more reliant on it. Some countries are advantageously positioned as their terrain may have large valleys, and they can generate a great deal of electricity from hydroelectric power without displacing large populations.

There are two aspects in speaking about nuclear power and energy, the development of nuclear technology for military use and war purposes, and the development purely for energy purposes. The debate has centred around the countries which are or are not signatories to the test-ban treaty. Those which are not controlled or within that loop clearly create a greater degree of volatility with regard to how nuclear energy is handled worldwide. If these countries are not party to an agreement or within a particular group of people with a convergence of thought on how energy should be developed, they are clearly open to persuasion by others. They are open to whoever is the highest bidder. We should be aware that science is advancing rapidly. Nuclear weapons and energy is generally coming within the grasp of people with plenty of money.

My colleague, Deputy Carey, was waving and I thought he was either swatting flies or waving at me. Clearly he was doing neither, despite Kerrymen having been known to do peculiar things from time to time.

The major powers have had access to nuclear energy for a long time, not that we have always agreed with it. We recognise that in many cases these countries have put nuclear energy to good use, such as for domestic purposes and so on. When we move away from these countries, there are other nations and people who can gain access to nuclear technology. Many of these nations have no reason for control, and they may have reasons for doing the exact opposite. They often have a grudge. Nevertheless, these countries have access to science and financial resources. They have many reasons, all justifiable on one side or the other, as to why they should have access to nuclear weapons and why they should be allowed to develop them.

Much was said earlier on the comparisons being made between the US reaction to North Korea and its reaction to Iran. I cannot personally understand how sanctions are going to stop the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea. It may slow down the economic development of some of the people further down the social strata but it will not in any way inhibit the development of nuclear weapons if that is the road the North Koreans will go.

This debate has taken place in this House and other houses over the years. We can go back as far as the sanctions which were implemented against South Africa and Rhodesia. I still do not know how those sanctions impacted negatively on the people against whom they were targeted. For example, to this day in South Africa it remains to be seen if such sanctions were effective at all. I do not believe they were, rather that they severely impacted on people within that country who were already poor, deprived and impoverished. What will happen in North Korea will remain to be seen. The difference between that case and Iran is that the latter is a very powerful country in terms of population. It has a huge population of perhaps 60 million or 80 million people and has many natural resources, including massive oil reserves. It is potentially very wealthy. There is a difference between the North Korean case and Iran. I do not know whether sanctions or negotiation are likely to come about there.

I am not proposing for a moment that military strikes will solve the problem. Negotiation of some type is required at this stage, and that is the feeling of most people watching these developments over the past number of years. If military strikes come about there will be retaliation of some nature somewhere. Sanctions, on the other hand, have been implemented against Cuba by the US and that has done nothing to achieve a meeting of minds between the two countries. It has made people who are already poor much poorer, but that is as far as it has gone. The point we must examine now and in future, with regard to the two countries concerned, is whether the procedures now proposed to be followed are likely to have anything other than a negative effect. In those circumstances we may be far better off to enter negotiations. It can do no harm to do so right until the last possible moment.

Other speakers have referred to the numbers which already have access to nuclear energy and, ultimately, nuclear weapons through enrichment procedures. There may be some countries involved in this that we do not know about. It is now possible, with modern developments in the science area, to develop miniature nuclear bombs, for example. That is possible, and they may be in the marketplace already. We do not know.

Knowledge of what is happening is very important. We did not know the facts about the Chernobyl accident for perhaps two weeks after the event. If the authorities at Chernobyl had announced to the world what was happening in time, it may have been possible to avert the accident. There are some in this country, and even this House, who may promote the idea of nuclear energy for domestic purposes. I have read some accounts recently that the Chernobyl accident should not have happened. We know it should not have happened, but it did. In promotion of their theory, these people argue that science has moved on and that it is now possible to have safe nuclear energy. It is possible to have nuclear energy that is safer than it was, but this is not necessarily safe. The two ideas are very clearly different.

Without a doubt nuclear power is a simple method of getting access to huge amounts of continuous energy for the reasonably mid-term future. Having said that, we must question whether our knowledge and ability to control situations are satisfactory and that, at the moment, is not remotely the case. Somebody will say we already have access to nuclear-generated electricity through interconnectors but I know that. That will remain the case into the future but we will hopefully have access to outgoing interconnectors so that we can export some of our energy, which is not nuclear-generated, and make a contribution to the international grid based on renewables, which will be better.

Ireland's access to nuclear energy through the backdoor is the original Irish solution to an Irish problem. It could only happen here. One Minister, not very long ago, discussed the possibility of divining nuclear energy from other electricity generation. How he proposed to do that I do not know. Ministers and future Ministers have colossal potential but it has not yet become clear how the Minister in question intended to select nuclear-generated electricity and despatch it elsewhere while drawing only on the organically generated electricity for which he obviously had a preference. It is a nice thought but doubtful in practical terms.

On the subject of maintenance, I am not keen for a nuclear reactor to be constructed in this country at this time. After all, if we cannot build a tunnel that can keep water out or a swimming pool that can keep water in, I find it difficult to understand how we could build a nuclear reactor safe from the threat of explosions, leakage and contamination.

See this speech in context