Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Given our history with tunnels and the costs of various projects, I suggest the Minister stays well away from that proposal for some time.

Sellafield has also been mentioned. As it is located so close to our shores we need to comment on it. The highest possible standards must apply to all nuclear facilities. In a typically Irish fashion we export our nuclear waste to Sellafield to be reprocessed. One accident is all that is needed and there have already been a number, not only at Sellafield but at various nuclear plants throughout the world; we have already referred to one of especial significance.

Murphy's law states that if something can happen, it will. Human nature being what it is, the smallest incident can trigger a big accident. It behoves us to bear in mind that that possibility remains, even though we do not have nuclear power on our own shore. As a result of our proximity to the UK, Sellafield has been a bone of contention for a long time and will remain so. Our colleagues across the water understand our concerns about it.

I will finish by referring to an area covered by my portfolio, namely energy requirements and the debate for which some have called. I have no objection to a debate taking place but I read in a newspaper not long ago that nuclear energy was quite safe and that Chernobyl, in scale, was not too important. It asserted that people did not die in great numbers. I was amazed that pen could be put to paper to produce what was nothing more than propaganda. It was a serious accident and will have serious implications for a long time for the people who lived there and will not be able to do so again. It is not true to say nobody lost his or her life or that people's quality of life was not affected. That the accident happened and was serious are facts. Neither is it true to say no resources were available to control it because substantial resources were put into attempting to control the reactor when the accident happened. However, they were not sufficient, despite people's best efforts. Some in this House and outside will say that if the authorities had been better organised nothing would have happened but we do not know that. The authorities were at the scene at the time and did their best, but it was not good enough.

I do not know how important the treaty will be. That will depend on the degree to and the spirit in which it is observed, not only by the signatories but by those are are not. If there are some who have no intention of restricting their development of nuclear energy for military purposes, or who have no intention of subscribing to any international convention to curb that activity, then we must ask who will police them and how effectively they can do it. I say this with a simple knowledge of nuclear power and weapons and the nuclear industry in general, and against a background in which substantial sections of Europe rely for their energy requirements on nuclear energy. Much of that is well policed, or at least so it is claimed, but I was forced to smile a few years ago when an EU member state objected to an incoming country on the grounds that its nuclear technology was not up to scratch. As Deputy Carey will recall, the incoming country responded that it used the same technology, of the same vintage, as the member state. We all tend to look over the garden wall and criticise those on the other side when it might serve us better to take note of what actually happens.

The treaty will hopefully be of some benefit. That will be the case if its signatories observe it and if those who are not signatories recognise that, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the whole area becomes less and less controllable. The less control there is the greater the potential for accidents or attacks, unprovoked or otherwise. In such circumstances we must ask ourselves the simple question: "Will it work?"

See this speech in context