Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

The produce of nuclear power plants, nuclear waste and the nuclear industry generally in how it relates to the production of nuclear weaponry make source of nuclear energy the most dangerous substance in the world. Nothing could be more serious than how we deal with it. It may be one of the great indictments of society that human beings have produced the most dangerous and lethal substance imaginable for military purposes because that is where it all began. Alongside the Nazi Holocaust, probably the most obscene crime committed by one group of human beings against another was the dropping of nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, not by so-called terrorists but by the most advanced and self-proclaimed civilised society in the world. Over two days approximately 200,000 people were incinerated. Two cities were destroyed, with virtually every living thing in them using this new technology. One would have thought this event would have been enough for our society to say collectively, "Never again," just as most sane and sentient human beings say, "Never again," to the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust. One would have thought that would have been the immediate reaction to the horrors of what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, particularly when one considers the cold, calculated geopolitical logic that drove it. A cursory examination of what happened at the end of the Second World War and the history of that period makes it clear that there was no military necessity for these bombs to be dropped. They were dropped not as the final action of the Second World War but as the first action of the Cold War. It was essentially a move by the United States to ensure Russia would not gain influence in Japan. That set the scene for the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. The other day I tried to explain the Cold War to my ten-year old son. There is a young generation growing up who do not understand that in 1962 the world came close to the abyss during the Cuban missile crisis when we were on the edge of nuclear annihilation. The two largest super powers in the world shaped up to one another in an effort to secure their strategic interests in their geopolitical-military struggle and seriously contemplated unleashing nuclear weapons in an action that could well have spelled the end of civilised society and, potentially, humanity. The arms race continued, which is from where the nuclear industry derived.

Some suggest nuclear power is benign and might help us to solve the energy crisis in an environmentally friendly way. This is utter nonsense. It fails to acknowledge the fact that nuclear power was developed as a by-product of the production of nuclear weapons and that is the only reason for it. The claim that it is an efficient or a relatively cheap way of producing power is utter nonsense. During the great miners' strike in 1984 and 1985 the National Union of Mineworkers produced a report which showed that if British Coal had received the same subsidy as British Nuclear Fuels Limited and the nuclear industry, it would have been able to give away every bag of coal that Britain produced at the time free, with a £10 voucher. Nuclear power production is not cheap or cost effective. It requires enormous subsidies from states and is a constant environmental threat, as well as a threat to the health and lives of people living in the vicinity of nuclear plants.

Why is this energy produced? It is produced as a by-product of the nuclear arms industry. For that reason alone, there is a huge irony in respect of some of the states that are signatories to the conventions we are seeking to ratify. We should ratify them, but there is a huge irony that they seek to put in place legislation, protections and so forth to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants from terrorist attack when, in fact, it is the plants that are the problem.

Every nuclear plant is a potential nuclear bomb that could explode at any stage. There would be no necessity to protect ourselves against a threat to nuclear plants if we did not have the plants in the first place. They are the danger, along with the people who produce and operate them and the governments that sanction that and put enormous amounts of taxpayers' money into them in places such as the UK, France, the United States, China and the other nuclear power generating countries. We would not have to worry about these things or be obliged to pass these laws and conventions if we did not have this insane technology which provides no benefit to society and simply represents a threat. It only exists to produce the material that is used to make nuclear weapons, the most obscene military technology in the history of humanity. It is important to register those points. We are obliged to worry about a threat that we, as a society, have created.

Ireland is against nuclear proliferation and does not have nuclear power stations. The only reason it does not have them is the huge movement that arose against an attempt to develop a nuclear power station in Carnsore. Due to the mass popular movement against that attempt, Ireland is a nuclear-free zone in terms of producing nuclear power. As the Minister said, we have historically taken a progressive position in opposing nuclear proliferation. However, one cannot repeat too often the point about the lunacy of nuclear power and nuclear weaponry and the urgency of decommissioning the nuclear power and nuclear arms industries.

We do not experience now the same Cold War fears that hung over a generation in the post-war period about the possibility of nuclear annihilation. That existed through to the 1980s. One of influences that first led me into politics as a youngster was becoming aware of Nagasaki, Hiroshima and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND, movement. That was a big movement at the time because there were real fears up to the end of the Cold War about the potential use of these weapons and the awesome destructive potential of the nuclear arsenals of the big powers, notably the United States, Russia, China and Britain. In fact, while there has been a small amount of decommissioning, these weapons are still being produced. There is still an enormous arsenal of them. Nuclear material is being transported across the seas close to us, while nuclear power is still being produced. Britain now intends to build eight new next-generation nuclear power stations in the UK.

If one thinks about it, the threat is as real and terrifying now as it ever was. Consider the geopolitical manoeuvrings of Russia and the United States in Ukraine and Europe's involvement in that. War is breaking out essentially because of the manipulations of the big powers in Ukraine. One begins to get a sense of the re-emergence of the logic that drove the Cold War and the quite terrifying possibilities that went with it with regard to the potential for war on a bigger scale and the use of nuclear weapons when things get out of control. It has been done before. The United States did it previously for cold, calculated geopolitical advantage.

One could also consider Israel, a state increasingly normalised by the European Union even though it is a renegade state in terms of its attitude towards nuclear power and nuclear weapons and its refusal to sign up to international treaties. Europe and the United States continue to treat Israel as if it is a normal state when, in fact, it is an incredibly dangerous entity that has these weapons and a huge nuclear industry. It does massive trade with Europe. Indeed, the technology industry in this country produces components for some of the weapons. Raytheon in the North, which thankfully closed down due to local protests over many years, was producing components for depleted uranium missiles used by the United States and Israel. In the South a number of companies are producing components for such weapons and exporting to Israel and so forth.

It is important to remind people what we are dealing with, how terrifying it is and how very real the threat is. The threat has not gone away. Indeed, with the development of new plants in the UK, it is increasing. Against that background, the idea is to get rid of a dedicated institute whose responsibilities are to monitor the nuclear industry internationally and the impact nuclear power plants and the transport of nuclear waste could potentially have on this country, to prepare plans in case of a nuclear accident and to deal with the naturally occurring problem of radioactivity in the form of radon, which leads to more deaths than road accidents. These are very serious matters, although not ones most of us think about on a daily or weekly basis. To have an entity that is dedicated to monitoring this area, making sure we have plans in place to deal with a serious accident should one occur and essentially fighting our corner on the international stage as a nuclear-free state and a state that might be endangered by the nuclear activities of other states is very important.

Given the importance of what we are dealing with and the importance of the role of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, I do not understand why the Minister is doing this. The single explanation given is that there might be some savings, although the Minister cannot identify them. That is not a very strong argument for getting rid of an institute that has such an important function and has developed an important international reputation.

Why is the Government getting rid of it? I do not understand. In any event, all staff currently working there will be transferred to the EPA, which means there is no saving in that regard.

Where are the savings coming from? So far, the only thing that has happened as a result of the plan is that more costs will be incurred. I heard that €800,000 had been set aside to progress the merger. It may actually cost us more to dissolve the RPII than to maintain it as it currently functions. I understand that the board which will be dissolved costs virtually nothing at €60,000 a year. Any committee established within the EPA is going to cost the same anyway. As such, I do not see where the savings are coming from. It seems like more cosmetic politics from the Government to suggest that we are getting rid of quangos. We are not in many cases getting rid of the quangos that really matter, the ones which really cost us or which have no justification. In the case of Irish Water we are establishing a new quango that will drain the pockets of citizens. It is already costing us an absolute fortune in the tens of millions of euro for consultants and billing systems. Here, we have an institute which actually does something useful and is dealing with an important issue but we are planning to dissolve it.

I would like to hear from the Minister of State why we should endorse this. It is unfortunate that the Government has mingled the plan to dissolve the RPII with the need to ratify the treaty, which we should do. It is ironic that we must ratify these things as the nuclear industry is so insane. We will be ratifying the treaty along with the states and powers which have created the threat in the first place. It is laughable. If they were serious about dealing with the problem, they would decommission the whole industry. However, given that the industry exists, we must ratify the treaty. That treaty matter should be separated from the issue of whether we dissolve the RPII into the EPA. I would like to hear why these things are being rolled up when they should not be. Frankly, my inclination is to vote against the Bill on the basis that we should not do this. The Minister of State has failed to provide any serious justification for getting rid of the Radiological Protection Institute. However, I do not want to vote against the other measure and should not be forced to. I put that out there for the consideration of the Minister of State and for the consideration of other Deputies who may not have had a chance to look at the issue yet. There are many things happening and preoccupying people which may seem more immediate, but this is quite an important issue. These two things should not be rolled into one.

I do not expect that the Government will rework the Bill or separate it into two Bills, which is what should happen. However, there is an opportunity for it to consider the comments that have been made and to respond now or on the next Stage of the Bill. Unless I hear very convincing arguments which respond to the questions I have raised and provide serious justification for what is being done here, I will vote against the Bill and encourage others to do the same. I realise the Government's majority means that will probably not make a difference. However, it should not be the case that a potentially controversial issue is rolled in with something which is not controversial. Most people would endorse the view that we should ratify an international treaty to ensure the safety of nuclear energy plants and materials. I hope the Minister of State will come back with convincing arguments. On the face of it, we should retain the RPII.

If the Government is insistent on going ahead with this, it must ensure that whatever committee is established within the EPA to deal with the very important areas covered by the RPII is placed on a statutory footing. If it is not, things may chop and change within the EPA on an administrative basis. Skills and expertise could be diluted and a dedicated focus on the extremely important matter of protection from radioactivity and nuclear waste could be lost over time. They might be diluted in a way that seems relatively unimportant to people now, but which comes back to haunt us in the event of an accident at Sellafield or Hinkley Point or where a nuclear powered ship dropped a load or sank in the Irish Sea. Suddenly, we would all go running to ask "Who has the plan? Who knows what the hell to do in this extremely dangerous situation?" only to find that we had diluted or weakened the body whose responsibility it is to monitor those things.

I await the Government's response to those points. I hope it will take them seriously.

See this speech in context