James O'Connor: End Ireland's Nuclear Ban?

Definitely James O'Connor. Grammaidh got lasgaon comhairle. I rise today to raise the issue of the possibility of having nuclear energy here in Ireland. As people across both sides of the House will know, I'm bringing forward legislation that will amend and remove the prohibition on generation of power by nuclear fission. And I'd like to get an idea from the Tánaiste and their leader of our coalition partners in government, his views in respect of is this possible. As we're in the House here today and it's been discussed by members on both sides, we are now the most expensive energy market in the European Union. And we need to ask ourselves the question, how did we get here? There has been other parties on this side of the House that have been in government in the course of the last 15 years. I just heard the leader of the Labour Party describe my proposal as a harebrained notion. And sometimes I wonder, did Roisin Shortall have a pint? But I will say this much. We have the possibility in Ireland to follow what other countries within the EU27 have done already by implementing nuclear power. You look at a country like Finland, we had the Grand Committee of the Finnish Parliament here two weeks ago in Insterhaus, the same population size as Ireland. They have 40% of their energy today coming from nuclear power. And as a consequence, the citizens and small businesses and the economy of Finland have the cheapest energy in the European Union. We've had lots of discussion about renewables, looking at the potential of nuclear and understanding the strategic aims and objectives of how we're going to decarbonise our economy. But common sense will tell us, from what other countries have done successfully, that nuclear is the way to go. We know that the technology is changing. We know that it's safer in the era of AI and what it can do for engineering, that it is now easier than ever to do this successfully. So, Tánaiste, I want to ask the government, is it time that we look at this as an option, as other countries have done successfully? And people here will always pick the worst case examples of where nuclear has gone wrong. And I understand for reasons of safety, for reasons of, you know, debates that we've had in times gone by in Ireland, but can we not acknowledge 30, 40, 50 years later that things have changed, that it's safer, and that as a consequence of our own inaction on this and the mistake of putting in place that prohibition, that we've put ourselves in a very vulnerable position when it comes to our energy security, about our energy sovereignty, and having the actual opportunity to become just the same as other countries have done so, a cheaper place for people to get their energy and to bring down bills in this country once and for all. Well, I want to thank Deputy O'Connor for the question, and I actually genuinely want to thank him for the positive contribution he's making to this debate, because this is what politics is about. I mean, he made the point about the different views the Labour Party might have. That's a good thing to actually have debate on policy. Like, we don't do enough of it, quite frankly, in this house. Politics has become far too performative and far too shouty and far too headline-grabbing. The fact that you're actually coming forward with a bill, that you've engaged with us on it, that you're asking people their views on it, is a good thing and a positive thing we should be doing as legislators. So, go raibh maith agat in relation to that, too. And energy security is also an important point, because we have found ourselves in Ireland, and in Europe, quite frankly, but perhaps particularly in Ireland, but more broadly across the European Union, very exposed to what happens very far away from our country. So, we can all commentate on what leaders of other countries do. It's not inconsequential, but we can't necessarily change that. So, I do think a conversation about energy security is extraordinarily important. And we have a tendency, and I'm sure none of us are innocent of this, we have a tendency to list everything that we're against. We're against this interconnector, we're against that, or we're against the other. I think there's an onus on all of us to stop saying what we're against in terms of energy security and actually start saying what we're in favour of. And different people will have different views on that, but I do take that point, too. My gut on this is I don't understand why we have a legislative prohibition in relation to nuclear energy. There might be. There might be policy reasons why people don't wish to pursue it. There might be practical reasons why it isn't that efficient time that we can debate that. But I'm not sure primary legislation in the 21st century needs to prohibit nuclear energy. Why can't we assess, consider, debate rather than having that legislative process? That's my position, if you want my honest answer. I don't believe we should have a legislative prohibition in relation to nuclear technology, and I don't think that follows. I don't think that serves policy debate well. In fact, I think it just shuts down policy debate, too. Different people have different views. That's my view, and I'm entitled to it, Deputy. The programme for government, though, is very clear in relation to renewables, and that has been the path we've been pursuing as a country. And we are making good progress on that, and we need to make more progress on that. Now, here's where we get to the evidence piece, and I'm not an expert on energy. In fact, I think we could do with more expert voices on energy in the debate, quite frankly. But I am told that the development of traditional nuclear power plants can take many years, can require the creation of an entire new regulatory system that doesn't exist in Ireland, that there can be real issues around construction, procurement, safe demolition, disposal of waste. So I'm not saying, by the way, that I'm fully bought up to this idea, but I'm saying debating and considering ideas around energy security isn't a bad one. I'm told by the Department of Communications and Energy that they think nuclear power might not practically be a part of our national electricity production in this decade, or indeed in the next decade. So I say these just to put those opinions on the table. Now, I believe the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland is leading on developing an evidence base, that's helpful, an evidence base for a pathway to decarbonise the Irish electricity system after 2030, and to reach net zero emissions by 2050. And SEAI is considering a number of technologies, including small modular nuclear reactors, as part of that consideration of an evidence base. So we do need all of the evidence, we do need all the information. I think the first question is, do we want to have a primary legislative proclamation of that? And I think there's some merit in that. Deputy O'Connor. Your comments are welcome, and the fact that we're actually having this debate is a healthy thing. And I think input from all sides of the House would be welcome in that regard, and that's why I'm very proud to bring this forward. I know we need to discuss the fact that we have to deal with our future demand. We know we're looking at a 45% increase in energy need in Ireland up to 2034. That cannot be delivered by renewables alone. We are going to be heavily depending on carbon energy to do that. And we need to also come to face the facts that 3.5 to 8 billion euros of public money a year could be fined on Ireland by the European Commission if we fail to deal with our decarbonisation targets. So this is the great conundrum. We have a population that has grown by a million people since 2006, expected to grow another million in the same period of time in the future. We have a 45% demand increase for energy. We have a strong economy at full employment. And what we need to do now is grab the bull by the horns and plan ahead. Because if you fail to plan ahead, Tánaiste, much like politics, you'll end up like the Labour Party, out of government for over a decade and irrelevant. I'm trying to pay tribute to you for being constructive. Nobody in this house is irrelevant. And we should all play a constructive role in debating. And look, there's different views in relation to this issue. Everybody brings a view. I was saying we don't have enough experts. I think my constituency colleague, Deputy Whitmore, may be much more expert on this from a professional background than I am. We should be hearing each other's ideas is the point I'm making. We don't serve the people well when we shut down debates around issues as crucial as energy security and reduce those debates just to what we can do in the short term in the here and now. That's important to help people in the here and now. But people also want to know where we're going to get to. Now, I've given my view around the primary prohibition in legislation. I don't think serving that debate well. And I welcome your legislation in relation to facilitating that discussion of why that's there and if that needs to change. I do also just note for the record of the house, the IEA, the International Energy Agency, did look at some of this and they did publish in December 2025 an independent expert assessment on our own energy system with a specific focus on the role of the power sector to 2035. It's called Powering Ireland's Energy Future. They did say Ireland had an opportunity to be a global leader in integrating variable renewable energies, particularly wind into our energy system. I'm out of time now, but they didn't see nuclear technologies considered feasible for inclusion in the Irish energy system in that timeframe to 2035. But let's have the debate and your legislation. Thank you.