First, I would like to make the point that the manner in which this Bill has come before the House and the short time available for it is an indication of the way in which Private Members' Bills are treated in this House. There have been promises on a number of occasions that Private Members' Bills would be dealt with more favourably. To date there has been no move in that direction. I urge the new Government to take on board the proposals we have made a number of times that Friday be set aside for Private Members' Bills. I hope that in the not too distant future that step will be taken.
The Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons (Controls) Bill, 1987, which we are discussing tonight seeks to prohibit the entry into the State of any vessel or aircraft carrying nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Under the Bill any foreign naval vessel seeking permission to enter Irish waters or any military aircraft seeking permission to fly over or land in this country would first have to furnish a written statement to the effect that it was not carrying any of the prohibited weapons. There is provision in the Bill also for the inspection of such vessels or aircraft when they land here.
The visit to Dublin last October of the United States vessel the US Nitro, a ship specifically designed to carry nuclear weapons focused attention once again on the total absence of control in the matter of inspecting naval vessels visiting Irish ports. The United States Government have persistently refused to say whether US ships visiting Irish ports are carrying nuclear weapons. Other nuclear powers adopt a similar position. The policy of the Department of Foreign Affairs which in effect is simply to rely on the goodwill of other countries not to send vessels carrying prohibited weapons is incredibly naive. Figures given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs last year show that permission was given for 1,462 over flights by military aircraft and that a further 271 were given permission to land. The fact is that we do not know, and the Department of Foreign Affairs do not know, if any of these aircraft were carrying nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. What is even of more concern is that there was an estimated 3,000 overflights in 1986 for which no permission was given. It is now more important than ever that neutral non-nuclear countries such as ours be seen to be taking a strong stand against these weapons of mass destruction. By passing the legislation we could deliver a strong message to the nuclear powers that we want no hand act or part in nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and that we will do nothing to facilitate their passage around the world by ship or by aircraft. New Zealand took a stand on this issue. They have adopted a policy of not allowing in vessels unless an assurance is given that there are no nuclear weapons on board. There is no reason why we should not follow suit.
I believe it is inconsistent for the Irish Government to take a strong stand on radioactive pollution from Sellafield while being prepared, apparently, to turn a blind eye to ships and aircraft entering the State and carrying weapons which could destroy the entire population of the country. Clearly this legislation would not save the country in the event of a nuclear war. Only the total elimination of nuclear weapons would do that but it would reduce the dangers to the Irish people and indeed to those on the western coast of Britain, also. It would reduce the danger of Irish people being the victims of nuclear accident. I believe it is just as important that it would enable us to deliver a strong public statement of our disapproval of the senseless arms race.
