Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

This is a very important opportunity to reflect on the debate about nuclear energy and power, and the differentiation, to which Deputy Durkan referred, between the use of nuclear energy for civil and commercial purposes and for military purposes. It is difficult to separate the two.

A global halt to nuclear weapons, as well as test explosions, has been a key security objective of the international community since the early 1950s. In the 1990s, spurred by a new round of Cold War nuclear testing moratoria and civil society support, multilateral negotiations on a test ban treaty were finally officially opened.

Ten years ago last month, UN member states overwhelmingly endorsed and later opened for signature the longest sought, hardest fought nuclear arms control treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CNTBT. Today, despite widespread support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and a de facto global nuclear test moratorium, the treaty has not entered into force. We cannot let the opportunity pass to comment on the broad geopolitical situation. Independent monitors have established that a nuclear bomb was detonated underground in North Korea because there are traces of radiation suspended in the atmosphere.

We must also consider the reaction to that unfortunate event. North Korea is a partner in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT, process but that did not stop it from detonating this explosion. It is interesting that China, rightly, condemned this exercise and influenced North Korea to moderate its actions. China also supported the UN motion to introduce sanctions against North Korea and Russia became involved. I share Deputy Durkan's reservations about the trade sanctions. The country which will hold the most influence, oddly, is Japan because it has a significant trade in luxury goods with North Korea. The roles of Seoul and Beijing are critical too.

We should not dismiss the latest UN Chapter 7 motion which is important for the international community. I would not, however, hold my breath waiting to see its effectiveness but it teaches us a lesson about the emerging balance of power in that region where China is taking a responsible role in foreign policy. We can look forward to further initiatives from that quarter.

As Deputy Woods said, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs met a representative of the Indian Prime Minister specialising in the nuclear industry. He explained India's position on its partnership with the United States. I would be much more worried about this partnership than about North Korea. The US Senate has yet to ratify the strategic partnership with India and that is unlikely to happen before the mid-term elections. Whether it will happen in 2007 remains to be seen.

It might appear that there is nothing to be afraid of in that one of two neighbouring nuclear states, India and Pakistan, is in partnership with the United States for ostensibly sound commercial and economic reasons. There is, however, a danger if we depart from the accepted norms in respect of working outside the NPT, that Egypt, Saudi Arabia or other countries in that region might do the same. At the recent meeting of the nuclear suppliers group, Ireland took a strong stand against the ratification of this partnership.

The United States and the European Union are rightly exerting pressure on the parties in Iran to suspend further development of the nuclear industry there. We cannot ignore the fact that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not be ad idem on how the role of Iran might develop in the next few years, bearing in mind the influential actors surrounding them, Afghanistan is significantly under the US control, Israel has a significant nuclear arsenal, Iraq is in serious danger of fracturing and within Iran and Iraq the Kurdish community is likely to push for greater independence. Political or economic discussions may ensure greater progress in Iran than the remote threat of the exercise of the military option against the leadership in Iran. I concur with other speakers that only as an absolutely last resort should we countenance anything remotely resembling what happened to Iraq happening to Iran.

Other speakers mentioned Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Windscale, as Sellafield was formerly known. No matter what gloss is put on them, nuclear reactors are dangerous. They constitute serious risks to global security. Anybody who has met the children who come here on holiday from Chernobyl needs little convincing to agree with those who are emphatically against the proliferation of nuclear power. It is difficult to counter the argument that we will be using nuclear power here regardless of whether we like it. It will not be possible to run nuclear generated electricity down one type of cable and hydroelectricity down another, much as we like to think it will be possible. Nonetheless it is important to debate the issue. Earlier in this parliamentary session Dieter Helm, energy adviser to the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, told us that as far as he could establish the nuclear energy debate in Ireland is dead and buried because we do not have the capacity to allow for a modest sized nuclear reactor.

See this speech in context