Deputy Kathleen Lynch who was in possession has 27 minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy R. Burke on Wednesday, 22 March 1995:
That Dáil Éireann, in recognising the important role played by the late Mr. Frank Aiken, TD, the then Fianna Fáil Minister for External Affairs, in initiating the Non-Proliferation of Nucelar Weapons Treaty (NPT) over 25 years ago.
—contends that the Treaty, which is due for renewal and extension in April of this year, should only be extended for five-year periods with a set of stated goals pronounced at the beginning of each period and
—believes that negotiations must be put in train to devise a new system for global denuclearisation which should include:
(1) halting all nuclear weapons production, modernisation and deployment.
(2) agreement on a schedule to achieve zero nuclear weapons.
(3) agreement on an implementation of a complete ban on the separation, production and use of all plutonium and highly enriched uranium,
(4) the establishment of an effective agency to monitor and control all weapons-usable nuclear materials.
(5) the establishment of a register by which the location of all weapons and nuclear materials could be recorded and monitored.
(6) agreement on and implementation of a total nuclear test ban and
(7) an end to the promotion of nuclear energy by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, in recognising the important role played by the late Mr. Frank Aiken TD, the then Minister for External Affairs, in initiating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) over 25 years ago.
—endorses the approach of the Government in support of the indefinite extension of the Treaty at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in April:
—endorses also the objective of the Government to secure five-yearly reviews of the implementation of the Treaty;
—believes that international negotiations should be intensified with a view to:
(1) achieving agreement on the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
(2) agreement, in this context, on the steps, needed to bring about an end to the production, modernisation and deployment of nuclear weapons.
(3) agreement on a treaty banning the production and use of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons purposes,
(4) the establishment of effective arrangements to monitor and control all weapons-usable materials and to increase transparency with regard to nuclear weapons and materials.
(5) the early conclusion and implementation of a total test ban.
(6) the strengthening of the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with particular reference to the Agency's ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities."
—(Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.)
I wish to share my time with the Labour and Fine Gael parties.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
In this debate I would like to refer to various statements made over the years. According to statistics one of the Trident submarines coming into service in 1995 at a cost of £5 million per day for 20 years has the capacity to destroy all major cities in the northern hemisphere. The weapons on board are useless as a protection for the nation launching them. Their use would cause such destruction and produce such high levels of radiation in our environment that much of the planet would become uninhabitable.
Bombs kill before they even explode, according to Bishop Eamon Casey in a statement made in reference to the amount of the world's wealth absorbed by arms on the occasion of the joint statement of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland on war and peace in the nuclear age. Sometimes we forget the good deeds of Bishop Casey. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, signifies a test from those who are hungry and are not fed and from those who are cold and not clothed, according to the late American President, Dwight Eisenhower. According to a United Nations survey, the world can either continue to pursue the arms race or, more consciously and with deliberate speed, forward a more sustainable international economic and political order; it cannot do both.
Earlier I described the Fianna Fáil motion as a good one although I disagreed with a small element of it. I was surprised, being aware of the position of power in which Fianna Fáil has been for many years, it did not do something more positive. Had it been more positive I would have held Fianna Fáil in much higher esteem because this is a subject close to my heart.
Unfortunately, I am unhappy with the amendment. The Government, of which I am a part, tabled an amendment, with which I cannot agree, to a motion which is good, perhaps ill timed. However, I am restricted by the Whip, as are all others, but it would be wrong of me not to say that. I was puzzled when I saw Deputy Burke's motion. My first instinct was to refer him to the Programme for Government. I was even more puzzled when I saw the amendment because I felt that not alone had Deputy Burke not read the Programme for Government but most definitely neither had whoever compiled the amendment. The Programme for Government clearly states that in view of the fact that the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty comes up for review in 1995 the Government will be seeking a five yearly review of the treaty and a halt to the production of fissile materials. Therefore, I do not understand the amendment and I am in a difficult position.
I commenced with statements which are relevant to the obscene waste of the world's wealth on nuclear energy. Many people are hungry and cold, many regions do not have water, and many people are badly treated by other human beings.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of a fundamentally flawed treaty. The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty was rooted in the mistaken belief that one could control the genie. Democratic Left is not in the illusion business. While we recognise the fundamental flaws in the treaty we also recognise a simple and unpalatable fact. The treaty, flawed as it is, is the only thing that stands between us and nuclear annihilation. It is also clear that its implementation must be reviewed. This is why the Government is pressing — I take this from the Programme for Government — for five yearly reviews of the treaty, not merely a five year audit.
The treaty must not only be reviewed but must ultimately be replaced. We must get away from the belief enshrined in the treaty that nuclear weapons are somehow acceptable in certain hands but not in others. I accept that I would prefer President Clinton to have control of nuclear weapons rather than Saddam Hussein but I would rather that neither had. What guarantees have we that the nuclear states will use their powers responsibly? Russia, one of the nuclear states permitted to hold nuclear weapons under the treaty, is scarcely an example of stability and I shudder to think of the use to which nuclear weapons would have been put in Chechnya or the Ukraine.
The so-called great powers, the nuclear states, recognised by the treaty have over the years abused their nuclear capacity. Since 1970 they have conducted over 580 nuclear tests. These tests were conducted in the context of what can only be described as nuclear colonism. Nuclear devices have been exploded not on mainland France but in the French overseas possessions in the South Pacific. Thousands of people have been dispossessed of their environmental heritage by nuclear tests. Islands in the South Pacific, used as a nuclear playground by both the United States and France, have been reduced to environmental wastelands. People have been forced to leave their homes. Two generations on they are still living in nuclear exile. They are the forgotten victims of nuclear madness. They do not fall into the neat categories of nuclear states or non-nuclear states. They have no say in the use of their land for test purposes. The colonised rarely have a say in the action of the colonisers. There is a perverted logic to these tests. Nuclear bombs kill, yet thousands of acres of land, whole islands and thousands of people have been sacrificed in the obscence desire to cause destruction.
The Government will be pressing for the early conclusion and implementation of a total test ban. Democratic Left welcomes this commitment. The issue of nuclear test victims should be placed on the international agenda. I would like to see Ireland take a lead in the demand for proper compensation, not peppercorns.
This year marks the 25th anniverary of the treaty. We also commemorate the 50th anniversary of the nuclear destruction of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The genie was let out of the bottle for the first time and thousands of people still bear the scars. Every person who knows the history of Nagasaki carries the scars and realises the dramatic effect, the trauma and the destruction of a nuclear bomb. Any person who reads about it will never forget it. In 1970 China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA committed themselves to nuclear disarmament, while the non-nuclear states gave up the right to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons. Twenty-five years later, the nuclear states are busy modernising their arsenals of death and many non-nuclear states are known to possess nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are now thought to be held by countries as diverse as Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and South Africa and may be in the possession of various terrorist groups. In this context, I welcome South Africa's commitment to abandon its nuclear programme. Unfortunately, other countries are unlikely to follow President Mandela's lead unless forced to do so by very stiff sanctions.
Since 1970 more than 75,000 nuclear weapons have been redeployed and more than 580 nuclear tests have been conducted, devastating communities and their environments. The number of weapons held may have been reduced but they are now far more deadly than the bombs which fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have the capacity to destroy the planet and the people who live on it. We continue to say that the deterrent is necessary. This can hardly be classified as non-proliferation.
The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was flawed in its inception and has failed in its implementation. The authors of the Treaty believed that once developed the deadly technology could be controlled. Once again politicians displayed an object ignorance of human nature. The technology to manufacture nuclear weapons is relatively simple and the main problem in the past was obtaining the necessary materials. However, following the break-up of the USSR in recent years a thriving black market trade in these materials has sprung up. The time has come for the international community to reject the false assumption that some countries are fit to hold nuclear weapons while others are not. No country, no matter how responsible its Government, should be allowed to hold weapons of mass destruction. Unless agreement is achieved on the total elimination not just of nuclear weapons but of chemical and biological weapons, we will all face Armageddon sooner or later. Some day someone will decide to press the button.
At the heart of the treaty was simply quid pro quo— non-nuclear states had to give up the right to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons in return for access to commercial nuclear technology. That seemed like a fair trade off at the time but it was before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and before we knew that a nuclear plant in England could affect the health of school children in Donegal. The review of the treaty must address the so-called peaceful use of nuclear technology as well as its military use.
The THORP nuclear reprocessing facility at Sellafield brings the nuclear threat very close to home. THORP, which has the capacity to produce any amount of weapon grade material, is less than 100 miles from this House. This death factory which produces leathal materials which can be used in nuclear war heads to rain destruction on civilians a few thousand miles away is on our doorstep. Yet for years we witnessed a cop-out as Fianna Fáil in Government wrung their hands and failed to act.
For the first time an Irish Government is committed without reserve to work towards the closure of Sellafield. Unlike Fianna Fáil, it is fully committed to making maximum use of the Paris Convention framework. Democratic Left has long argued that the EURATOM Treaties must be amended and updated to take account of the concerns of non-nuclear jurisidictions which share land or maritime borders with nuclear countries. This is now Government policy. Unless we address the issue of this so-called peaceful use of nuclear engery in tandem with its military use we will continue to face an unprecedented threat. In this regard I support the efforts of organisations such as Greenpeace and CND in having the issue of nuclear energy placed firmly on the agenda of the April Review Conference. I hope the Government will take their concerns on board.
I take it the Deputy is voting with us.
Nineteen-ninety-five is a crucial year for the Non-Proliferation Treaty whose initial 25 year span has come to an end. Speakers on both sides of the House have drawn attention to the fact that it is also the 50th anniversary year of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Less than a month ago President Robinson, on her State visit to Japan, went to Hiroshima. I understand the experience impressed itself indelibly on the minds of all the Irish party and left a single stark message: never again. Fifty years later, the horrific consequences of nuclear attack live on in the bodies of men and women not yet born in August 1945. The nature, though not the scale, of the physical devastation caused by the bomb is there for all to see in a single ruined civic building which speaks volumes. The President and those accompanying her saw the exhibits in the peace museum relating to the bombing, including the pathetic fragments of clothing which are all that remain of one child who died. We are all impressed by the way the people of Japan and especially of Hiroshima have managed to distil from their horrendous experience a positive residue which is reflected in Japan's approach to nuclear weapons issued today.
The resonance which the issue of nuclear weapons naturally evokes in Japan is echoed in the feelings of the Irish people. The Japanese officials whom the Irish party met were aware of the role played by the late Frank Aiken at the United Nations in raising the issue of nuclear non-proliferation in 1958 and tenaciously pursuing it until the unanimous adoption of the Irish Resolution by the UN General Assembly in 1961. At the Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima, the President handed over a presentation text of the Irish resolution, worked in calligraphy on vellum. It was clear that securing the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which that resolution initiated, is a major objective which is shared not only by the Japanese and Irish Governments but also by a large number of other Governments. All are convinced that this objective will best be served by indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty at next month's conference.
This is also the position of the Government of Argentina where the President is spending the first days of her state visit to three South American countries. Argentina, a former "threshold State" which had attempted to develop an independent nuclear weapons capability while under military rule, acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty on 10 February. This is a most significant and timely step which confirms that country's strong commitment in recent years to contribute towards international non-proliferation efforts.
Though not yet parties to the NPT, it is worth noting that Chile and Brazil are, like Argentina, parties to the 1969 Treaty of Tlatelolco, the first treaty which set out to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in a large inhabited region of the world. The Treaty of Tlatelolco is now in force for 29 Latin American and Caribbean states which have thereby undertaken not to test, use, manufacture, produce or acquire nuclear weapons.
We hope that the African region will soon conclude an agreement establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone on that Continent also. South Africa's renunciation of its nuclear weapons programme cleared the way to this most important and heartening process. Like Argentina, South Africa changed course and joined the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.
Will the Minister of State tell the House why South Africa is not going for indefinite renewal but is taking the line we are taking?
I will deal with that point later. In referring at some length to Japan, Argentina and South Africa in relation to the NPT, I want to bring home to the House through recent events, that the treaty remains as relevent an instrument today as in the 1960s.
The Government sincerely believes that the NPT is of central importance and that universal accessation to the treaty and full compliance with its provisions remain an urgent international priority. The Government remains convinced, as an earlier Government was at the time of the 1990 Review Conference, that the 1995 conference should be approached as an opportunity for Ireland, which has been intimately associated with the NPT from the outset, to renew our commitment to the treaty for an indefinite period of time. It is for this reason that we are working with our EU partners, in the framework of a joint action pursuant to Title V of the Maastricht Treaty, to promote the indefinite and unconditional extension of the treaty at next month's conference. We want the treaty to emerge from the conference with its credibility further enhanced and its future permanently assured.
The world no longer lives with the daily fear of nuclear conflict between the superpowers as it did when the NPT was negotiated and for almost two decades afterwards. The norm of non-proliferation established by the NPT has taken root and so we are surprised that in the 1960s it was feared that as many as 25 states might acquire nuclear weapons — perhaps even including some countries which are today among the strongest supporters of the NPT and of nuclear disarmament. We would do well to reflect that some emerging industrial nations may today, for rather similar reasons which include reasons of national prestige, be reluctant to forego forever the operation of developing nuclear weapons for themselves. Any NPT extension decision which leaves some uncertainty about the future of the treaty will raise doubts of this nature about the intentions of states with respect to nuclear weapons. Such doubts are contagious and can easily breed actions very detrimental to international peace and security. A voidance of this prospect is a powerful argument in favour of indefinite extension of the Treaty.
A total of 172 states are today legally bound by the non-proliferation obligations enshrined in the NPT. That is a very significant achievement, one that under no circumstances must be endangered, Nevertheless, a great deal remains to be done to make the world safe from nuclear weapons and indeed from nuclear materials. Some important countries in regions of proliferation concern, such as the Middle East and South Asia, remain outside the Treaty; their position poses real dilemmas for neighbouring countries who have taken on the obligations of the treaty.
Ireland's concerns about the plutonium generated by civil nuclear activities are compounded as large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium come on stream from the dismantlement of nuclear arsenals, welcome as that process is. A permanent NPT would improve the climate for international efforts to address these new challenges. An uncertain treaty would seriously aggravate the difficulty of strengthening the international non-proliferation regime which has been built around the treaty and the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The extension of the treaty for short periods conditional on progress elsewhere, as proposed in the Fianna Fáil motion, would create deep uncertainty about the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the safeguards regime. It would put at risk the gains which have been made since Frank Aiken first raised the issue of non-proliferation at the United Nations. It would jeopardise the prospects for further progress on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. These risks posed by the Fianna Fáil approach far too great to be entertained. This view is shared by many countries — by all 52 states of Europe represented in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), by the members of the European Union including our neutral partners Austria, Finland and Sweden, by countries such as New Zealand and Australia which have traditionally shared Ireland's approach to nuclear disarmament, and by many in the developing world.
The approach outlined in the Government motion preserves the essence of Frank Aiken's achievement on nuclear non-proliferation while providing for further steps to bring an end to nuclear weapons.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Like the Tánaiste I commend the timely initiative taken by Deputy Burke in drawing the attention of the House to this important issue which will arise at next month's nuclear non-proliferation treaty and Extension Conference in New York.
It is clear from the many contributions today that nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament engender strong feelings on all sides of the House. I have no doubt this debate reflects a real and lively interest among the people on issues of nuclear weapons and nuclear powers. I, too, pay tribute to the important role played by the late Frank Aiken in initiating the debate on nuclear non-proliferation at the United Nations and on building the necessary consensus in the General Assembly to start the negotiations which led to the Treaty. The Government amendment retains this element of the Fianna Fáil motion.
The Tánaiste explained the Government's objection to the proposals for short extensions of the NPT as well as its strong belief that the optimum outcome of the conference would be for the NPT to be indefinitely extended. The Government amendment, therefore, endorses the approach of the Government in supporting the indefinite extension of the treaty at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in April. The amendment also endorses the Government's objective to secure five yearly reviews of the implementation of the treaty. The Government considers that those reviews will provide an opportunity to hold all states' parties to full compliance with their obligations under the treaty. In particular, the reviews should serve to inject momentum into negotiations in other fora or measures conducive to nuclear disarmament.
The Government strongly advocates progress on other nuclear disarmament issues. Its amendment states that Dáil Éireann believes international negotiations should be intensified with a view to progress in several specific areas and I was pleased that Deputy Burke found most of them acceptable. In regard to achieving agreement on the elimination of all nuclear weapons, I have no doubt we will get the support of the House for intensified efforts to achieve agreement on the objective of zero nuclear weapons. Achieving an agreed formula on the steps needed to bring about an end to the production, modernisation and deployment of nuclear weapons is comprehensive and practical and reflects the commitment of successive Governments to the complete elimination of the use and threat of nuclear weapons. The Government is working in the UN to achieve that objective. It believes there should be agreement on a treaty banning the production and use of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for weapons purposes. This debate highlighted the concern about the excessive quantities of such dangerous materials in the world. There is consensus in the UN General Assembly on a resolution calling for negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral, international and, effectively, verifiable Treaty for this purpose.
The Government is also concerned about the large stockpiles of plutonium in the world. International negotiations should be intensified with a view to the establishment of effective arrangements to monitor and control all weapons-usable materials and to increase transparency with regard to nuclear weapons and materials. Long standing concerns about the safe handling and storage of plutonium generated by civil nuclear activities have become more pressing as huge amounts of weapon-grade plutonium come on stream from dismantling nuclear weapons. There should also be an early conclusion and implementation of a total test ban. Since the General Assembly resolution of December 1993 in which the entire international community, for the first time, supported multilateral negotiations for such a treaty, a comprehensive test ban treaty has been the main focus of attention in the conference on disarmament. There has been a noticeable quickening of place in negotiations at the 1995 session. I understand the Government expects work to conclude soon with the adoption of a treaty which will comprehensively ban nuclear explosions for all time, which will command widespread support from the international community.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Cullen.
I am sure that is agreed.
I compliment Deputy Burke on putting down this timely motion. The nuclear non-proliferation regime must be strengthened to face the challenges of the coming decades. Cold War circumstances no longer apply and cold war methods are no longer relevant. If the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is to play an important role, creative new approaches are required. As extension of the treaty comes under consideration by states' parties there are some points I would like to make.
The NPT provides for the collective review of the treaty's operation every five years. Four review conferences have been held to date and they have been difficult, even acrimonious, affairs.
The conference next month includes the fifth review as well as the extension decision. This conjunction provides a special opportunity to review the review process itself. The longer the treaty is extended for, the more critical it is that the review process inspires confidence, since it is the only mechanism for monitoring compliance with the treaty's promissory provisions. One reform flows from looking at the review process as a five year cycle rather than intermittent events. The cycle would begin with parties to the treaty setting general compliance targets for the coming five years. This would be followed by a five year good faith effort to attain those targets through specific measures and actions. The cycle would end through evaluation of the match between expectation and performance. At the end of each cycle, each review conference should allocate time both to look back at the previous five year period and forward to the next five year period. In this way each review can be maximally useful to the next review and progress towards the long term objectives of the treaty could be tracked more systematically through the years. If the foregoing suggestion is considered practical, then it makes sense to implement it next month.
The second half of the review would be devoted to identifying targets for the period 1995 to 2000 so that the review conference in that year will be able to make a sound evaluation. Perhaps, with the same behavioural and compliance demands of all, truly universal adherence to NPT could be achieved by the year 2000. As a parliamentarian I cannot comprehend how any state purporting to support non-proliferation can justify further acquisition of nuclear weapons. Certainly, it is in the interests of all states to forestall a new nuclear arms race should international relations deteriorate. If some nuclear powers are not ready to stop production immediately, it is entirely reasonable to establish the target of ending all acquisition by at least the year 2000. Once the option of producing more weapons has been ruled out, all future reductions would be irreversible, thereby enforcing a downward trend in the number of nuclear weapons towards zero.
Periodic monitoring alone is not enough to command confidence. Objectives alone are not enough, but together they can inspire confidence and build support for a lengthy extension of NPT. There are any number of nuclear arms control measures which would complement the NPT. Some have or will soon enter into force, such as, START I and START II. Others are championed by non-nuclear weapons states but lack sufficient support among the nuclear weapons states to be right for action.
Given the reluctance of most of the nuclear weapons states to say anything about nuclear arms controls beyond fissile cut-off and possible START III negotiations, it is important for the non-nuclear weapons states to be clear about which of the many measures they champion must be resolved as part of the decision to extend the treaty and which can be taken up within the framework of the NPT after 1995. Failure to be clear and unified on this point puts at risk achievements of a positive result in April.
A list of demands that is too long can be easily rejected as unreasonable by the nuclear weapons states allowing them to avoid having to make any specific concessions. The polarisation already evident in the substantive decisions at the four preparatory committee meetings would just become further entrenched. The result would be a decision on extension adopted against the will of a large majority. Regardless of who won the vote, this would undermine the legitimacy of NPT. A short list, on the other hand, would command respect and require a thoughtful response. It would depolarise the extension decision and serve to strengthen the non-proliferation regime as a whole. A non-proliferation regime that has not effectively ended nuclear arms competition by prohibiting all acquisition of nuclear weapons cannot claim to have established an inter-nation norm against proliferation.
As negotiated, the NPT aspired to end acquisition in two dimensions, vertically and horizontally. In the horizontal dimension those states which had not acquired nuclear weapons prior to 1 January 1976 were to renounce acquisition forthwith. In the vertical dimension negotiations would bring to an end the nuclear arms race between the nuclear powers. To be effective, measures negotiated would have to preclude the resumption of a nuclear arms race, that is, they would have to rule out any future acquisition of nuclear weapons.
It is upsetting to recall that Britain, France and China appear intent on continuing to produce nuclear weapons for the years to come. They have repeatedly asserted their intentions to conclude and sign a comprehensive test ban. They are also on record as favouring negotiation of fissile material cut-off but, even as Russian and American nuclear weapons are being dismantled, these three countries are building up their forces to new heights. While the pace of acquisition has eased somewhat, production of hundreds of warheads is planned over the next several years. There is a strong expectation that they will join in the downward trend when the superpower arsenals come within the range of their own, but there are no firm commitments. Also, they seem to be counting on the process of super power reductions to be a protracted affair, leaving them out of the picture for decades. Although production in the United States and Russia has or will soon end, their interest in a test ban and cut-off seems to be driven more by preventing horizontal proliferation than capping vertical proliferation. It is widely appreciated, even among those who make the weapons, that the good old days are well and truly over. There have already been massive cuts in personnel and equipment expenditures at both the weapons factories and in the laboratories.
After 25 years the nuclear weapons states parties to the NPT, whether or not they have production plans, are still unwilling to renounce the prerogative of acquiring more nuclear weapons by some future date. Under these conditions continuation of the NPT indefinitely would render meaningless the phrase "at an early date". To many non-nuclear weapons states which renounced acquisition 25 years ago, this is unacceptable.
The countries that use the principle of stable deterrent state that it is only an interim measure until full nuclear disarmament is achieved. Ireland as an independent state which used its neutrality to good effect during the Second World War can become a central player in nuclear disarmament, and I urge the Minister for Foreign Affairs to maximise that to the full.
The Progressive Democrats' parliamentary party considered this motion briefly today and is not very happy with it. It appears far too broad and, if passed, would have serious consequences that may not have been intended by Deputy Burke. It seems entirely antinuclear in respect of all aspects of nuclear activity. The Government amendment, although similar in outline to the motion, appears more balanced and sensible.
The motion is an attempted catch-all motion which over-reaches itself and, as a result, is flawed. The present treaty is open-ended but is due for review and renewal next month. It would seem very unwise to extend it for five years only on the basis that it could then expire. What is needed is the renegotiation of the treaty specifically with a new set of stated goals and new obligations on all member states of the United Nations, not just the known nuclear club.
The statement, that "Dáil Éireann believes that negotiations must be put in train to devise a new system for global denuclearisation" is meaningless in practice as it is far too wide. Nuclearisation at present extends not just to weaponry but to energy production, to fuel reprocessing and to nuclear medicine. To abolish all of these on an equal basis is far too sweeping and would have appalling consequences. Even if the proposer of the motion denies that he intended all of these consequences he should draft the motion more carefully.
I wish to make the following comment on the paragraphs in the motion. On paragraph (1) this would be commendable if the International Atomic Energy Agency were given these powers under the terms of a new treaty. Under the existing treaty it cannot be done and this is aspirational.
On paragraph (2) this would require a new treaty but if such is agreed it would seem that ideally an obligation such as this should be undertaken by all member states of the United Nations as a condition of their membership. However, it is worth bearing in mind that nowadays the production of nuclear weapons may not be confined to countries only. Technology has advanced to a stage where private or terrorist sources may be in a position to produce nuclear weapons so greater powers are needed for the International Atomic Energy Agency.
On paragraph (3) the production of non weapon grade plutonium should be clearly differentiated from weapon grade. There are throughout the world fast breeder reactors which require plutonium. It seems to be unrealistic to prevent all reprocessing, even for obviously peaceful purposes.
On paragraph (4) there is an existing agency, the IAEA set up in 1957 by the UN General Assembly as an autonomous intergovernmental organisation to perform these functions. It can be argued that it does not have sufficient powers but it can be given new teeth so that it can make more effective arrangements to monitor and control weapon grade material. However, universal monitoring may well prove impossible particularly in respect of submarines and highly mobile ships or aircraft.
On paragraph (5) this is probably unrealistic however worthy its objectives. At present it is thought that countries such as Pakistan, India, Israel, South Africa, Brazil and some others have a nuclear weapon capability but the existing treaty does not enable that they have to be monitored.
Paragraph (6) should be reworded to make it clear that it is the testing of weapons which is banned not research and development in the production of electricity or in nuclear medicine.
On paragraph (7) this in effect brings an end to the IAEA and would run counter to the wishes of the General Assembly which set it up. It seems curious to advocate this because Ireland is a governor of the International Atomic Energy Agency and our ambassador to Austria is on the permanent committee of the agency. Ireland should have a strong voice in halting the use of nuclear energy for military purposes and it can exercise that voice best within the agency.
Both we and the international community generally should push for further research and development into nuclear fusion under the Jet Programme of the European Union. In suggesting total denuclearisation as set out in this motion it seems that we would be acting against the terms of our Constitution under Article 29.4.3º of which we ratified the EURATOM Treaty and are bound by its terms. EURATOM of which we are a member through our membership of the European Union is committed to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, research, the pooling of information and the training of scientists and technicians.
To suggest that the IAEA should stop the promotion of nuclear energy is in defiance of its mandate given to it by the United Nations. That mandate states inter alia that the agency's objectives are: to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world; to ensure as far as it is able that the assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose; to foster research and development of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy; to safeguard against the diversion of nuclear materials to military purposes; to establish and adopt health and safety standards regulating nuclear energy.
An end to the promotion of nuclear energy by the International Atomic Energy Agency would mark the end of the agency and the end of the only world agency monitoring the nuclear industry worldwide.
Ireland is a member of not just the IAEA but also of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the various subgroups of both as well as a party to other international conventions. Our monitoring internationally is carried out for the most part by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, formerly known as the Nuclear Energy Board, and it also monitors the position domestically.
The most pressing need is for international regulation of the nuclear industry generally, especially and initially within the European Union, so that even the peaceful activities of one member state will not cause enormous damage in another. For us to turn our back on nuclear energy generally would be unreal and hypocritical. Nuclear power and nuclear medicine have been of inestimable value to the world and provided they are not abused and are carefully regulated and monitored, they should not be harmful. If nuclear fusion as opposed to fission can be developed to the stage that it becomes commercially feasible, it will be of incalculable benefit because it will provide unlimited power and energy without the associated dangers of radiation. I am very glad that some Irish institutions, particularly Professor Wrixson's Institute in UCC, are helping with the development of software for the fusion research programme in Britain and Italy under the auspices of the European Union. If this can be brought to a successful conclusion in the next 15 to 20 years, the world will truly be transformed by the use of that nuclear fusion. We should seek to develop this to the greatest extent possible and at the same time to work to try to phase out all nuclear weapons based on fission.
Ireland has long held a strategic position, both politically and geographically, as a post colonial neutral state far closer to countries with a similar history in the southern hemisphere than to the western imperial powers. The late Frank Aiken when Minister for Foreign Affairs recognised Ireland's potential to champion the path to world peace when he helped to initiate the NPT. I take my hat off to his memory and to my constituency colleague, Deputy Burke, for tabling this timely motion.
In 1968 when Ireland became the first signatory of the treaty this Government was no more than a twinkle in the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton's, eye. Does the Government think its predecessor in 1968 thought the best option for non-proliferation was to row in behind the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France and China? The Government in 1968 thought more of neutrality, independence and its responsibility to represent the concerns of non-nuclear nations than the present rainbow coalition. It is incredible to think that the Government is reluctant to support the position of over 20 non-nuclear states calling for five yearly fixed period reviews of the non-proliferation treaty in the face of intimidation from the main nuclear powers. Those of us in the Green movement and elsewhere who took hope from Ireland's long history of supporting international efforts to achieve the prohibition and elimination of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, are now deeply suspicious of the Government's intent.
In June 1994 I applauded the support given by Ireland to the World Health Organisation's move to outlaw all nuclear weapons. On 18 November 1994 Ireland was again asked to stand up and be counted in a sensational vote at the United Nations General Assembly disarmament committee where a resolution was passed to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the question "Is the threat of use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?" In all, 77 states voted for the resolution. Incredibily, Ireland, a non-nuclear and neutral country, abstained causing great confusion and dismay regarding its voting patterns at the United Nations and other international fora.
While the non-proliferation treaty has kept the issue of non-proliferation alive during the past 25 years we should not fall into the Fianna Fáil trap of thinking it has been an unqualified success. It appears that the Tánaiste also thinks the treaty should continue indefinitely. Let us consider the facts. Since the treaty came into force more than 75,000 nuclear warheads have been deployed, over 580 nuclear tests have been conducted and the production of new nuclear weapon systems has continued. Moreover the nuclear weapons programmes of Britain, France and China remain untouched by existing arms control treaties.
Instead of rowing in behind the nuclear powers in supporting an indefinite extension of the treaty, I urge the Government to tackle the contradictions and weaknesses within it. Our awareness of the health risks from radiation is at a far higher level now than it was in the 1960s, yet the treaty promises the benefits of "peaceful" applications of nuclear explosions to all — benefits that did not exist then and are environmentally indefensible in 1995.
Of particular relevance to Ireland, the treaty does not define a nuclear weapon. All the components of a nuclear weapon, including the fissile core, can be acquired and there will have been no violation of the treaty until they are assembled. In the case of Ireland, the nuclear plants on the west coast of Britain are often described — rightly — as time bombs. The question for the Government is: when is a time bomb not a weapon? The answer appears to be when it is a civil nuclear installation. This generation, and future generations, are being badly served by a Government which accepts the arguments from the pro-nuclear lobbyists who create false demarcation lines between civil and military use of nuclear power. Unfortunately, Deputy O'Malley seems to be joining that lobby now.
The total plutonium — civil and military — produced since 1945 is approximately 1,300 tonnes. At most, approximately five kilograms of plutonium in metal form are needed to make a nuclear weapon. The THORP reprocessing plant will separate approximately 2,000 kilograms of plutonium a year. Even using the best technological safeguards, more than 140 kilograms of plutonium worldwide go missing each year.
In supporting the Fianna Fáil motion, I urge the Government to again look at its willingness to accept the pro-nuclear arguments of our EU neighbours. We are a neutral country and the contradictions in this treaty demonstrate clearly why it is important for us to remain so.
There is one absolute guiding principle behind Government policy on the issue before the House — Ireland is fundamentally opposed to the possession by any state of nuclear weapons. We want their elimination by common agreement and their complete elimination by every State. Hence our original involvement in non-proliferation treaty and our active role now in its renewal.
Frankly, I am amazed at the position taken up by Fianna Fáil on this matter. It is really inconceivable that, if it was in office, Fianna Fáil would pursue a policy such as the one it presents in this resolution. There can be no comparison between the visionary and realistic approach of Frank Aiken 30 years ago which commanded the respect and support of the world, and this ill-thought out and risky idea of limited and conditional extensions of the NPT contained in the Fianna Fáil motion. I am sorry to see the Opposition adopt a policy so at odds with its past achievements in this area and so contrary to the basic objectives of Ireland's disarmament policy.
I want now to deal with some of the points made in the debate, and indeed outside the House, on this issue. It is alleged that the indefinite extension of the NPT amounts to acquiescence in the retention of nuclear weapons of the nuclear-weapons states. I categorically reject this allegation. Do those who make such allegations believe that the founders of the NPT, including Frank Aiken, thought that the NPT would promote nuclear weapons or that the nuclear weapons states should be allowed to retain their weapons of mass destruction? Of course not. I repeat that in the NPT all five declared nuclear-weapons states have undertaken a legal obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament in good faith. We intend to hold the nuclear-weapons states to that pledge and it will be easier to do this if the future of the NPT is secured.
It is also suggested that Ireland has been pressurised by the members of the European Union into supporting a joint action on the indefinite extension of the Treaty. I would point out that when the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the day, Gerard Collins, first enunciated our policy of indefinite extension at the Review Conference in 1990, the European Union had no common policy on the non-proliferation treaty for the simple reason that France was not then a member of the NPT. It is turning history and logic on its head to suggest that Ireland has been browbeaten by its European partners into a policy of indefinite extension. On the contrary, the Government was pleased that the Union last year adopted a joint action that corresponded with the position Ireland had articulated in 1990.
It has been said that the Government's position on the NPT is at odds with our position of military neutrality. I do not for one minute suppose that anyone could take this allegation seriously. One of the great values of the NPT is that it is supported by a wide spectrum of countries — states that are military allied, states that possess nuclear weapons, states that oppose nuclear weapons, states that are non-aligned and states that are neutral such as Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland. It is this broad constituency, legally committed to non-proliferation and to nuclear disarmament, that gives the NPT its strength and holds out a real hope of a denuclearised world. Our position on the NPT is in the finest traditions of Irish foreign policy and to suggest otherwise is to traduce the memory and efforts of those who worked to bring it about.
It is intimated that Ireland's position represents a minority view in the lead up to the NPT conference next month. In fact, a large number of countries support an indefinite extension of the treaty. This includes all 52 members of the Organisation for Security and co-operation in Europe; countries with which Ireland shares a strong anti-nuclear weapons stance such as Austria, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and Australia and many in the developing world. This widespread support represents a strong conviction about the value of the NPT and the need to secure its future.
It has also been suggested that Ireland's policy somehow lacks a moral perspective. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Ireland believes that nuclear weapons have no place in an international society founded on the principles of morality and justice. That is why we want to see these weapons eliminated but we must begin with certain facts.
Some states possess nuclear weapons and see them as essential to their security. Others want to possess them for reasons of security and national prestige. The technology is there and is available. We disagree fundamentally with the position of these states. The question faced by Governments such as ours is how we translate our opposition to nuclear weapons into concrete steps to secure their elimination. How do we persuade those who possess nuclear weapons to give them up and how do we convince those who want to develop such weapons not to do so? The NPT is one part of this process but it was never intended, and is not intended, to be the end of the process.
The Tánaiste made clear this morning that just as the Government continues to attach importance to the non-proliferation obligations which the NPT imposes on the parties, the Government remain's deeply attached to the good faith commitment to nuclear disarmament contained in Article VI of the treaty. The Government shares the view of successive Irish Governments that the use of strategic nuclear weapons would have catastrophic consequences because of their indiscriminate character and devastating effects; that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would entail the danger of escalation and could quickly lead to the use of strategic nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and that, consequently, every effort should be made to achieve the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. The Government continues to work for and lend support to sound proposals to this end including, in particular, a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and a treaty to ban the production of plutonium for weapons purposes.
I emphasise that the indefinite extension of the NPT is not incompatible with further progress on nuclear disarmament. On the contrary, the Government believes that, by enhancing confidence, a secure NPT would enhance the prospects of the further steps that are so urgently needed. An insecure NPT, subject to the vagaries of negotiations every five years and to progress in negotiations elsewhere, would undermine confidence; it would put at risk the gains so painfully made over the past 25 years and it would also put at risk the possibility of further progress on nuclear disarmament.
A number of speakers referred to Sellafield and the risks and problems it poses. Members are no doubt aware that the policy of successive Irish Governments has been to press for the closure of Sellafield. It is my wish — and that of the Government — that all discharges of radioactive waste from Sellafield, marine and atmospheric, planned and unplanned, be prevented and eliminated. Past incidents at Sellafield which resulted in uncontrolled radioactive discharges have heightened the concern on this side of the Irish Sea about safety standards at Sellafield.
The Government is also opposed to commissioning the THORP plant which represents an additional and unnecessary risk to the health and safety of the Irish population. When THORP was originally given the go-ahead in 1977, nuclear power was still generally believed to have a prosperous future and reprocessing was thought to be a key factor in the uranium fuel cycle. Today, the arguments for reprocessing are not convincing. The anticipated expansion of nuclear power has not materialised and the plutonium and uranium recovered from spent fuel are no longer required for reasons of economy or security of supply. Indeed they are adding unnecessarily to the huge stockpile of nuclear materials worldwide which are considered by some countries to be a major security and political problem.
The Government's policy agreement —A Government of Renewal— sets out the Government's proposals to tackle the problems of Sellafield and other aspects of the UK nuclear industry, particularly the threat of pollution and its effect on the health and safety of the public, the shipment of radioactive materials and ageing nuclear reactors. My colleague, Deputy Stagg, Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, in conjunction with the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State at the Department of the Marine, is setting up a task force comprising officials of the three Departments and other relevant Departments, to develop a concerted strategy for implementing the Government's proposals on Sellafield. This will be the first comprehensive initiative taken by any Government to tackle the problems of Sellafield.
We are a neutral and anti-nuclear State. Together with other similar states, we have the task of persuading the nuclear powers to co-operate in practical steps towards nuclear disarmament. This remains a major challenge. Some non-aligned countries feel they might gain leverage over the nuclear weapon states by withholding agreement to indefinite extension of the NPT in favour of a short extension or series of extensions linked to achievement of certain long-standing objectives in the field of nuclear disarmament. I can only repeat what the Tánaiste said this morning in setting out the Government's resistance to a series of short conditional extensions. Far from being the best way to progress towards nuclear disarmament, and far from exerting leverage, a series of short conditional extensions would undermine the credibility of the NPT; weaken its effectiveness; tempt non-nuclear weapon states to anticipate the ending of the Treaty; and by virtue of its effect on the attitude of the nuclear weapon states, freeze ongoing efforts towards nuclear disarmament. For these reasons I reject the Fianna Fáil motion.
I propose to share my time with Deputy Ray Burke, and other people may wish to contribute also.
I am sure that is satisfactory. Agreed.
I compliment our party spokesperson, Deputy Ray Burke, on putting down this timely motion. I am surprised at the way the Government has addressed this matter as I would have thought that if ever a motion came before this House on which there would be all-party agreement, this is it. This motion signals to a certain extent our independence as a nation and our role in leading in this area, as we did in the days of Frank Aiken. I speak as a person who succeeded Frank Aiken in the constituency. As a member of Fianna Fáil, Frank Aiken was a most enterprising Minister and the way he addressed this issue is testimony to his career although the nation has not properly recognised his contribution. However, the Government and Deputy Burke, extolled the work he did in this area.
Rather than the Government accepting in a piecemeal way what has happened in recent years, rather than, as I read in an article yesterday, siding with the big guns, it should take this motion on board. As a small nation which down the years indicated its independence and neutrality on these issues, we should have sent a signal to other countries by accepting the motion. I find it difficult to understand why it cannot be accepted.
If the Government accepts that this Treaty should be reviewed every five years it will speed up the process of doing away with nuclear weapons. The attitude of countries such as Britain and France to this whole issue is counter to the Treaty. We should not blandly accept the anodyne statements of the bigger nations that they want a world rid of nuclear weapons. Given our independent history, particularly at the UN, if we back this motion many nations will sit up and take notice.
I represent a constituency that has been the subject of much comment down the years in terms of difficulties from nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield. I am not saying that we in Louth suffer most from this problem; I accept that all those living on the east coast are affected by Sellafield. One only has to look at the recent incident at Douneray where a number of workers were badly injured as a result of leakages to realise the problems that can arise. On the east coast in particular people live in the shadow of Sellafield.
About two years ago Deputies Keogh, Sean Ryan and I took it upon ourselves to travel to Sellafield and I was astounded at the magnitude of THORP. The people in Sellafield did a good PR job but accepted that representatives from the east coast would be opposed to THORP. Having taken us on a tour of the plant they asked us whether we accepted that they had the best of technology. I replied that my visit there convinced me more than ever that the commissioning of THORP would get the green light. The man to whom I spoke was not convinced, but I did not believe that the British Government, the Japanese Government and other governments who, through their contracts, contributed to THORP would refuse to commission it. I was proved right a couple of weeks later when a debate took place on the matter in the House of Commons — I was present that day as it marked the signing of the Joint Declaration. On the following day when I put down a Private Notice question on the matter I described the cavalier attitude adopted by the British Government to a so-called friendly neighbour.
I attended a meeting recently in my home town at which it was suggested that this Government — and previous Government of which my party was a partner — was involved in a cosy relationship with Britain in regard to Sellafield. I do not accept that is the case. I outlined at that meeting this Government's intentions on THORP, as set out in the Programme for Government. Unfortunately its attitude is no different from that of previous Governments. A number of people in Louth, one of whom is a first cousin and next door neighbour of mine, had the courage to take an action against BNFL and Ireland. That case will, I hope, be decided within the next two or three weeks. When Fianna Fáil was in power I found it extremely difficult — I still do — to understand why the State would not take a case on this issue. I accept there are arguments against taking a case against BNFL. I accept what the then Minister from my party said, that if you take a case against the advice of your officials it may be lost. He said that in that event we would never be able to challenge Sellafield and it would be better to wait until the proper evidence is available.
The reality is that four people from County Louth have taken a case against BNFL and against all odds they were able to convince some eminent senior counsel that people on the east coast of Ireland had a case against BNFL. Even BNFL was surprised at the way in which these people addressed the case. I wish them the best of luck and I ask the Government — I asked the previous Attorney General — to back these people who have gone to the trouble of taking a case — I have no doubt it will end up in the European Court — by giving them an assurance about their costs, as the four people have put their livelihoods at stake, and assist in other ways. These four litigants have had to engage experts from America without any assistance from the State. In fact the State is one of the defendants.
I exhort the Government to respond positively to the request from the Stop Thorp Alliance Dundalk, STAD, group which is promoting this case. I ask the Government to assist these courageous people in their action. At the meeting I attended people did not understand why it was left to four individuals to take the case. I accept that legal advisers tend to be cautious but, unfortunately, we are subject to an abomination 60 miles from us. If we decide to wait until we get proper evidence it may be too late.
I ask this Government to put what it said on this matter in its policy document, A Government of Renewal, into effect and take action against BNFL. The previous Government did not close its mind to assisting these people and neither is this Government's mind closed to assisting them.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Martin and McDaid.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Irish Government could take the initiative in regard to the transport of nuclear waste to Sellafield and other areas. There will have to be an international law to prevent movement of nuclear waste. I have heard and I accept the argument that the contracts may disappear and that Sellafield would be no longer economic. What I saw when I visited THORP does not suggest that the contracts will dry up because a massive amount of money has been invested in this project. I do not think hard-headed business people would invest that amount of money without being certain there would be sufficient contracts to make it viable. Perhaps, as we have seen in the problem between Canada and Spain on the question of fisheries, there will have to be international pressure applied to prevent the transport of nuclear waste to Sellafield.
It is strange that the Government would not send a signal to all people on this island that it will get tough with the nuclear industry. By tabling an amendment to Deputy Burke's motion the Government is signalling that it is prepared to go along with the big nuclear powers, but that is not good enough.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the subject. I pay tribute to my colleague, Deputy Ray Burke, on his timely introduction of this motion following in the spirit of the late Mr. Frank Aiken in seeking a new departure, a more independent approach to this issue and trying to accelerate the denuclearisation process. The kernel of the motion tonight is to put forward specified goals and targets for each five year period. I am disappointed that we could not have unanimity on the motion and the Government, which includes Democratic Left and the Labour Party, would have had much in common with the principles outlined by Deputy Burke. Rather than allow the House divide on the issue, the Government should have acknowledged the superior content of the motion, accepted the spirit of Deputy Burke's contribution and the principle of endeavouring to accelerate the denuclearisation process. I understand Deputy Lynch indicated she has difficulties with the Government motion and she should follow through and vote for our motion. She would be welcome in our lobbies.
I doubt that.
I wish to pay tribute to Adi Roche from Cork for the outstanding work she has done in assisting the children from Chernobyl and in creating public awareness of the horrors of nuclear power. I take the opportunity also to ask the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, to seek an urgent meeting with the British Minister for Defence on unofficial dumping off the Irish coast of thousands of bombs and containers of nerve gas. It has come to the attention of Deputy McDaid and me that the British Ministry of Defence has officially admitted, as late as last February, to Councillor Oliver MacMullen from the Moyle District Council that it dumped nerve gas off the Donegal coast and off the Irish coast in the 1950s. I understand that such an unofficial dump exists off the Cork coast in a line between Cork and France near the Continental Shelf. We are not sure if it was dumped off the Continental Shelf or inside it.
It is a matter of grave importance on which the Minister for Defence and the Government should seek immediate clarification and a clear statement detailing the quantities of nerve gas dumped, where the dumps are located and a fully inventory of the materials dumped. We are talking about lethal substances. A total of 70,000 aircraft bombs were dumped by the British Government of our coasts. Three ships which dumped there were identified. These people are of the view that there are more such unofficial dumps around the coast in particular along the Cork coast. I am anxious that the matter be investigated. We are talking about mustard gas, sarin which was used in the Iraqi war and the Indo-China war and anthrax which is lethal. The Government should seek an urgent meeting with the British Minister for Defence to pursue the matter further and allay public concern.
I commend Deputy Burke for bringing this motion forward. I concur with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Martin. It is not just a kneejerk reaction to state this, because three weeks ago I put down a parliamentary question to the Minister for the Marine asking for further information on the dumping by the British Ministry of Defence after the last world war.
In the tragedy in Tokyo the nerve gas used was sarin. I have quite reliable information that out of the ten ships off the Donegal coast, two contained that nerve gas. For the first time, the British Ministry of Defence has admitted dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes in five dumps off the coast of Ireland. As Deputy Martin stated it has come to our knowledge that there is some dumping of chemicals for use in war off the Cork coast. I know that 3,500 tonnes of artillery shells containing mustard gas and tabun were dumped by the British in sealed containers 40 miles off Malin Head.
Nuclear warfare seems to be the flavour of the month. We must ask the Minister for the Marine to seek information from the British Ministry of Defence and the Marine on these lethal gases which have been dumped off our coast.
I thank Members who supported the principle of the Fianna Fáil motion in my name. I thank my party colleagues who spoke so movingly on the issue and my constituency colleague, Deputy Sargent. I thank Kathleen Lynch for her support on the issue. I regret that the Government showed itself to be complacent. The word "craven" was used to describe its attitude. It is regretted that the Government is not prepared to reflect the deeply held views of the people in the matter. They are totally opposed to nuclear power, nuclear weapons and reprocessing. They fear the situation that prevails on the coastline in the UK, the ships ploughing the Irish Sea and nuclear weapons generally.
Unlike Frank Aiken who, in his time, was prepared to take a stance which did not have the support of many states, our Government unfortunately shows itself to be craven in the matter. The Tánaiste, in dismissing the motion and asking for support for his amendment, stated that when Frank Aiken made his proposal he was the first to raise the issue of nuclear non-proliferation at the United Nations in 1958. He stated the proposal met strong resistance not only from the major powers but from many smaller states as well. That is what Frank Aiken faced. The NPT has served the world well. It has been the cornerstone of our policy but now we want a new way forward with five year renewals and stated goals and objectives as listed in the motion before us.
The Tánaiste accused us of having a risky approach but his is a complacent one. Our approach reflects the view of a neutral nation. We have a policy of positive neutrality and we want to reflect that in our stance on the renewal of NPT. We are asking the Government to fight for renewal but with stated goals and targets on a five year basis. That is not risky. It is sound and sensible in a time, 25 years after the treaty was signed, when we no longer have the Cold War which existed at the time of the signing of the treaty.
Frank Aiken was radical in his approach. The Tánaiste spoke about the world being safer due to the NPT. It is safer because of the radical approach taken by Frank Aiken rather than the approach taken by the Government. The Minister of State, Deputy Burton's speech was naive. She spoke of South Africa which voluntarily gave up its nuclear policy and has not gone along with the big guns. It refused to go along with the indefinite extension of the NPT. In the EU with big powers like the United Kingdom and France, Ireland is afraid to speak up. We like to go with cap in hand and accept EU funds but not to raise our voice or rock any boats.
As regards my good friend, Kathleen Lynch of the Democratic Left, she spoke movingly about the death of children from nuclear contamination, the destruction of areas and praised the motion as being an excellent one. I thank her for that. She went further and said she could not agree with the Government amendment but found herself in a difficult position. She then went on to say that Democratic Left is not in the business of creating illusions and we must all face Armageddon. That speech has about as much value as a £3 note and if she wants to come into the House and make nice flowery speeches she should follow them up by going through the lobbies. That is the only way forward.
Just as Fianna Fáil did in the vote on the Regulation of Information (Services Outside State for Termination of Pregnancies) Bill.
As far as the Progressive Democrats is concerned. Deputy O'Malley made his usual pro-nuclear speech on the generation of electricity and so on. I want to be fair to Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left on this issue. Having listened to Deputy O'Malley this evening, without doubt this is the most pro-nuclear party in this House with a view which reflects the view of nobody else except themselves. Even though the nuclear generation of electricity is no longer commercially viable worldwide, the Progressive Democrats sticks with it. They will stick with big business at all times.
I ask those Members who spoke in support of the motion, including Deputy Kathleen Lynch who does not like the Government amendment to follow their consciences and vote with us.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harney, Mary.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
- ÓCuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
Tellers: Tá. Deputies Barrett and Brian Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies Dermot Ahern and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, declared carried.