Dáil debates

Thursday, 19 October 2006

Nuclear Test Ban Bill 2006: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Finian McGrathFinian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Legislation is welcome on this important national and international issue. It is important that we have an informed debate on nuclear weapons and tests and I have listened closely to the contributions of my colleagues. This is a topical issue given ongoing events in regard to North Korea and Iran. Countries such as Israel, the United States, Britain, India and Pakistan must be brought into the wider debate.

It is essential that we are not selective in our opposition to certain countries and nuclear powers. Nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are entirely wrong. They are criminal and immoral and no state should be allowed to develop them. All Members should unite in this view.

On the broader issue of nuclear power, we must face up to the debate that is required and conduct it in an informed manner. Recent claims that nuclear power is the answer to climate change do not reflect reality. Nuclear power is not carbon emission free. The entire nuclear cycle from uranium mining onwards produces more greenhouse gases than most renewable energy sources, with up to 50% more emissions than wind power. Doubling nuclear power in the United Kingdom, for example, would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8% because the electricity sector accounts for one quarter to one third of all carbon emissions and the transport industry accounts for most of the rest.

A new nuclear power station takes ten years or longer to generate electricity. Wind farms, on the other hand, can be up and running in less than a year. We have seen this for ourselves in the developments in wind energy in recent years. Nuclear power is also expensive. The nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, for instance, is massively subsidised by the British public. The installation alone ofSizewell B, Britain's newest power station, cost taxpayers some £3.7 billion. Furthermore, it will cost an estimated £56 billion to decommission Britain's existing ageing power stations. The magnitude of these resources must cause everybody to pause and reflect on the worthwhile projects to which they could be applied, particularly in regard to world poverty and disadvantaged communities. It is important to reflect on economic issues such as these as part of this debate.

Nuclear energy is not sustainable because the reserves of uranium ores used to generate nuclear power will run out. Only 50 years worth of high-grade uranium ores remain in the world. There may be only 200 years left of all uranium ores, including poor uranium ores which take more energy to mine and process and thus release more carbon emissions. We must discard the image that nuclear power is clean. It is dirty and dangerous, posing a threat to the environment and human health. It produces significant amounts of toxic radioactive waste, some of which remains hazardous for thousands for years. No safe solution has yet been devised to store it. Uranium mining, which is the first step in the nuclear power cycle, has been responsible for the deaths of miners throughout the world and causes environmental contamination, cancers and nuclear waste. Have we no concern for the health of these miners and the conditions under which they must work?

We must always remember the terrible nuclear accidents that have taken place, including those at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Windscale, now called Sellafield. Such accidents will plague a new generation of power stations as it did the first. Moreover, nuclear power brings with it the risk of nuclear terrorism. In this age of uncertainty, dirty bombs and attacks on power stations are a terrifying prospect. We must wake up to this reality. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to nuclear power by the sheer need for enriched uranium and through the generation of plutonium as a by-product of spent nuclear fuel. The two industries have been linked since the beginning and a world free of nuclear weapons requires a non-nuclear energy policy.

I welcome the positive contributions from Members on all sides of the House to this debate. What is needed, however, is action to protect the planet. We must develop a safe, sustainable, global and green solution to our energy needs. This will involve a combination of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures based on safe, effective and proven technoclogies that are already available. The Government must live up to its commitments under the Kyoto Agreement by investing in sustainable, clean solutions to climate change. I raise these points because they are linked to the debate on this Bill. I appeal to everybody to stop this lunacy and take corrective action.

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is an attempt to make progress on nuclear disarmament. I strongly support the broad coalition of individuals and organisations campaigning to secure full replacement of Britain's nuclear weapons system. Nuclear power is not worth the risk. Nevertheless, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, has announced that nuclear power is back on the agenda with a vengeance, ignoring the advice of many independent experts that nuclear power represents a dangerous future for Britain. As an independent country, we must assert our authority on this issue.

I strongly oppose any plans to attack Iran and I am concerned by suggestions in the media that the United States may be planning nuclear weapons tasking against Iranian facilities. There is no evidence to support allegations by the United States that Iran's uranium enrichment programme is for the purpose of developing weapons of mass destruction. I urge Ireland, the EU and governments throughout the world to support the campaign for nuclear disarmament, CND. Members must work together with community groups to challenge opinion on these issues.

A British nuclear powered Trident submarine carries 48 independent warheads, each of which has seven times the explosive force of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The cost of this weapon to the British public is £1.5 billion per year. One might assume we would have learned the lesson of the tragedy in Hiroshima, where 140,000 innocent men, women and children were slaughtered. I also strongly support CND in its campaign against the United States missile defence system. Far from being a defensive system, it is rather a system of offence which threatens to provoke nuclear war. I also oppose any development of space nuclear weapons which are being promoted as so-called "weapons for peace".

We must work to end the plutonium trade. EU countries, particularly those that are members of NATO, must become part of a campaign for a nuclear-free, less militarised Europe and an end to the expansion of the nuclear powers within NATO. Ireland could play an important role in terms of influencing NATO. We must put across the message that nuclear weapons are not an option. As part of this debate, we must agree to urge these states to get their act together. Billions of euro and dollars around the world are being spent on nuclear weapons while people are starving. In recent weeks many people have been at risk in Darfur, and we must assist them. Many other poor countries also require investment in health, education and employment. I want to stop the lunacy of investing money in nuclear weapons with which the vast majority of people on this earth want nothing to do.

Ireland could punch above its weight on the international stage and assert its authority. We are a small independent country widely respected around the world, and we must assert our authority, particularly in the debate on nuclear energy. Atomic power is not the answer to climate change and it is not worth the risk. It is all very well to say that it is a reality that Britain needs nuclear power in the modern age, but I have put forward other sensible options.

I stress that a safe energy mix of renewable energy sources, cleaned up fossil fuels and energy efficiency measures, all of which are safe, effective and proven technologies, is available now; it is not an impractical fantasy. Germany, a massive industrial power, is closing its nuclear power stations and moving towards reliance on a non-nuclear mix, an extremely important development that I welcome. I applaud attempts by any country to review its energy needs and challenge those directly involved in the nuclear industry.

In recent days we discussed North Korea, but there is also the scandal of countries that have nuclear weapons and do not say much about it. Over the summer more than 1,100 innocent men, women and children were killed in Lebanon in the conflict on the border with Israel. Another hidden reality is that Israel has nuclear weapons. The official Israeli policy is neither to confirm nor deny the existence of a nuclear weapons programme, although we all know that it has one. One good man, Mordechai Vanunu, spent 18 years in prison for revealing its existence and is still prevented from leaving Israel. That Israeli citizen wished to expose what was going on in his country.

While I also challenge countries such as Pakistan, imagine what would happen if nuclear weapons were used in the Middle East conflict. We must be extremely careful and strong. There is a major crisis in the Middle East that we are trying to resolve. I welcome our sending 150 soldiers to Lebanon to contribute to peacekeeping efforts there and I commend those involved in that magnificent work. Imagine what would happen if a nuclear power entered the race and flexed its muscles on such issues. I believe that the main reason that Israel did not deploy its nuclear arsenal in 1973 was that neither the USSR nor the USA was willing to risk such an escalation, both intervening forcefully with their clients.

However, such countries must also examine their own consciences when it comes to dealing with nuclear weapons. Russia and the USA must face the reality that both their citizens and ours want nothing to do with such nuclear weapons. I seek a change in policy and mindset and a negotiated peace with justice in the various conflicts around the world.

The Nuclear Test Ban Bill 2006 is entitled "an Act to give effect to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 September 1996". It is important that we support the United Nations in its attempts. However, there is no point in treaties or deals if one does not implement the recommendations. We should know from Irish history that when one has deals and treaties, one must implement them, particularly when they promise sensible solutions. The Nuclear Test Ban Bill 2006 is a major step in the right direction and I urge people to implement its positive recommendations.

I welcome the international agreements and other positive measures of recent years in the field of nuclear disarmament, including reductions in the arsenals of nuclear weapons as well as in the prevention of nuclear proliferation in all its aspects. It is important that we row in behind such international agreements. The verification section of the treaty reads as follows:

In order to verify compliance with this Treaty, a verification regime shall be established consisting of the following elements:

(a) An International Monitoring System;

(b) Consultation and clarification;

(c) On-site inspections; and

(d) Confidence-building measures.

Those four elements are particularly important. We require an international section with a strong presence monitoring the situation. We also need consultation and clarification and when I speak of "consultation" I do not mean lecturing. The on-site inspections are also essential since the countries and inspectors must have the authority to assess the situation. However, we must also build up the confidence-building measures under paragraph (d).

There is currently great mistrust in the Middle East towards many western countries and we must face up to that reality. It has led to hostility between two cultures and civilisations, and it saddens me to see that happen, especially when I see the many good and noble people of vision on both sides who are trying to break down barriers. All legislators, Deputies, Senators and Ministers, have a responsibility. If one has the honour of being elected to the Oireachtas, which is extremely difficult, it is very important that one is directly involved in confidence-building measures. We have seen this in our conflict in recent days in the shape of the St. Andrews agreement. We must be active in assisting those from opposing sides, creating space for them so that they can reach a resolution. There is an onus on us to do so.

Regarding the on-site inspections under paragraph (c), section 34 reads as follows:

Each State Party has the right to request an on-site inspection in accordance with the provisions of this Article and Part II of the Protocol in the territory or in any other place under the jurisdiction or control of any State Party, or in any area beyond the jurisdiction or control of any State.

I wish to comment once more on inspection. If we had allowed Hans Blix and his team to deal with the Iraqi situation, we would not now be witnessing such a horrific nightmare in that country. I challenged those countries that undermined the work of inspectors who went to Iraq to try to resolve the crisis in their relations with the country. They were blown out of the water and their integrity destroyed, although they were ultimately proven right. There were no weapons of mass destruction there, yet they led to a huge international conflict based on lies and spin. People should hang their heads in shame at the great numbers being killed daily in Iraq, particularly those who, having supported that war, remain silent on it. I commend such people as Hans Blix for doing something to prevent war and disputes around the world.

Article VI, which deals with the settlement of disputes, reads as follows:

Disputes that may arise concerning the application or the interpretation of this Treaty shall be settled in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Treaty and in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

We are all mature enough to settle disputes and accommodate difference on the broader international stage.

I urge rejection of all nuclear weapons and nuclear powers, and of the weapons of mass destruction dominant in the world. Any State that uses, possesses or tests them must be challenged and exposed. There is never an excuse for manufacturing or possessing nuclear weapons, particularly in a world that needs money to invest in health care, anti-poverty measures, education, child care and employment. That is where we should spend taxpayers' money and resources. We should not be afraid to tell the British, American and Israeli public where Ireland stands and let them know that we are opposed to weapons of mass destruction. This is not a high moral ground approach, but a sensible outlook on life and a sensible vision for the future. It is also a mark of respect to the 140,000 men, women and children slaughtered in Hiroshima.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I hope the treaty will go a long way towards creating international and world peace.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.