Vol. 529 No. 1
84 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if Ireland favours an international agreement banning the use of depleted uranium, or any other such substances as have any deleterious effect on the health of civilians or participants in conflict; if Ireland will use its position on the Security Council of the UN to sponsor such an initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2223/01]
85 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his reaction to the reports of the effect of depleted uranium in the Balkans; if he has concerns in relation to Irish citizens who have served or are serving or resident there; and the numbers involved in Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans. [2151/01]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 84 and 85 together.
Reports about the possible environmental and health risks of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans have given risen to public concern throughout Europe – a concern which is very understandable. In the light of these concerns, it is now essential to establish the full facts following a thorough and objective investigation. These facts must then be assessed so that any necessary action can be taken by the appropriate authorities. It is vital that there should be full transparency in this matter. There are genuine concerns about health risks and possible environmental damage. Anything less than full transparency will only serve to heighten these concerns.
The key issue is whether there is a link between the use of depleted uranium munitions and the illnesses which have been reported by troops who have served in the region and by the local residents.
There are currently a number of relevant international studies under way, most notably a study by UNEP, the UN Environment Programme, which is expected to be completed in March. In response to an earlier UNEP report, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation provided UNEP with detailed information on the use of depleted uranium munitions in Kosovo. This information facilitated a UNEP field assessment mission to Kosovo last November. I understand that, more recently, NATO has made available to this programme information relating to depleted uranium use in Bosnia in 1995.
I welcome the establishment, within the Partnership for Peace framework, of an ad hoc special committee on depleted uranium to which all SFOR and KFOR contributors, past and present, have been invited. This committee is providing a forum for exchange of information among interested countries, particularly in regard to the various studies and other measures which those countries are undertaking. In addition, a number of European countries are also undertaking their own studies and investigations in this area. I hope the findings of such investigations will be shared with other concerned states and organisations.
It is not possible to give an overall figure for the number of Irish citizens resident in the region. I understand that 176 Defence Forces personnel are currently serving in the region and, in total, more than 600 members of the Defence Forces have served or are serving there. Some 58 Irish civilian personnel are currently serving with the main international organisations, including 39 Garda personnel. Since 1995, a total of 204 Garda personnel have served or are serving in the region. Apart from those serving with the Defence Forces, Garda personnel and other civilians with international organisations, there is a small number of Irish citizens resident in the region.
I understand from my colleague, the Minister for Defence, that a task team from the Defence Forces visited Kosovo and Bosnia recently to measure radiation levels and to liaise with the medical authorities of KFOR and SFOR, the two peacekeeping missions in the region. This team concluded that the risk of radiological contamination from exposure to depleted uranium munitions to our troops is considered negligible. Nevertheless, there is a need to respond if they have concerns regarding their health.
The key requirement now is for objective information. I would, therefore, regard any proposal for an international treaty as premature at this stage. No such proposal has come before the Security Council. However, I will keep all aspects of this issue under review.
I note the Minister is not committing himself to an international agreement. He suggests that studies are taking place in a number of countries to establish objective information. In view of this, what are his views on the report in The Guardian of 11 January which suggested that a report was available to the Minister for Defence in the UK in 1997, which suggested that there would be damaging effects from depleted uranium? As Minister for Foreign Affairs does he not consider that the EU code of conduct on arms exports, introduced on 11 June 1998, has been made a mockery of because of the unwillingness to share information on the use of depleted uranium on both combatants and civilians?
If the Minister is not to take an initiative on an international treaty does he favour the replacement or revision of the EU code of conduct on armaments by, for example, the 1997 international code of conduct suggested by 14 Nobel peace laureates? Does he agree that a serious question arises with regard to those who have hidden information and who, far from sharing it, have driven a coach and four through the EU code of conduct on armaments?
The essential aim is to establish the facts on the basis of a full scientific investigation. Once we have these we can make an assessment and any appropriate action can be taken by the relevant authorities. Pending an assessment of the scientific evidence it is a matter for individual states to judge how to respond to public concern in this matter. I do not wish to rule in or out any option at this stage. The Defence Forces do not have any munitions containing depleted uranium.
The matter was discussed informally at the general affairs council in Brussels on 22 January and the council will go back to the matter at its February meeting where I will raise some of the points mentioned by the Deputy. However, in an exchange of views among Ministers on 22 January there was a general consensus on the need to respond to public concern, while the importance of transparency and the need to await the result of the various substantial studies was also emphasised. The Commission has established a committee under the EURATOM Treaty to study this issue, but the EU does not have a primary role in that member states have the responsibility.
An issue of concern has arisen. Fora have been established for the exchange of information, which may have not been the case before. For example, we can be part of the Partnership for Peace committee in an attempt to ensure that we get the fullest possible information. It is a matter still under review at the general affairs council. When all the information is available and studied, an informed decision can be made as to what is the best way of dealing with this matter for the future. In the meantime, the health concerns of those involved in the conflict in Kosovo can be dealt with.
Is the Minister in favour of revising the EU code of conduct of 11 June 1998? He is asking me to accept that future sharing of information will take place when I have pointed out that information was made available in 1997. He did not respond to that. What views does the Minister hold on the impact on civilians of the use of this product? He is either in favour of a ban or he is not. If he is in favour does he agree with the need to change the EU code of conduct on armaments or does he favour taking a UN initiative in the interests of civilians and some kind of humanitarian practice? Is it not a bit much to ask us to sit back and accept that a new round of studies is now taking place when it has been published that information was available in 1997 which flies in the face of statements published in 1999-2000?
I am not here to defend or otherwise the publication of a report in the UK which should have taken place in 1995, 1997 or at any other time. I am here to state that in relation to an issue which has arisen and which may have affected our forces, we are involved actively in seeking to assess the situation on the basis of objective information we have obtained and studies we are carrying out.
The citizens—
Given that I listened to the Deputy's question, he might listen to my reply. He may not like the reply but he might listen to it. We are not sitting back. The Minister for Defence has instigated a number of proactive steps, both within the Defence Forces and in relation to other countries which were involved with us in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, to ensure we can get the fullest possible objective information available in a fully transparent and objective way. The Government is not pre-empting the steps that may be taken as a result of our consideration of that activity and information available to us.
I will be a little selfishly Irish because my principal concern relates to the Irish people who are serving and have served in the region. I gather from the Minister's reply that that involves approximately 1,000 overall. I am concerned about the safety and security of those 1,000 Irish people. If we are talking about depleted uranium being a coating on armour piercing shells which can leave a radioactive after-effect, what is being done to try to find out if our personnel may have been in areas where such shells have been used? Second, what medical screening or steps have been taken by the Government to establish whether any of our troops, gardaí or civilians who have served or are serving in the Balkans have had adverse health effects as a result of their living or working in the region? Have we sat back and allowed things to happen elsewhere or have we focused on the safety, security and health of our people?
No, the contrary is the case, and it would be irresponsible for anyone in this House to suggest otherwise. No responsible Government of any political composition would be interested in doing so. Once this matter was brought to the Minister for Defence's attention, he moved immediately to ensure tests were carried out in the areas of the Balkans where our people served. The results that came back showed the risks were negligible. Clearly we are involved in international committees which were assessing the information which all the various countries are collating in the interests of the protection of their people. When we have an opportunity to assess all that objective information, we will make the proper decisions. Despite the efforts of the Labour Party Opposition spokesman, I have ruled nothing in or out in relation to what our response may be in that matter.
The Minister's response that the risks are negligible in relation to our people is reassuring, and I do not question that. In light of the evidence available, what steps are being taken from the point of view of medical screening to check the health and status of our citizens who are serving or who have served in the Balkans and who may have had some adverse effects? Perhaps it is a long shot, but should we not at least provide that type of cover? I wish to raise one other issue.
The Deputy must be brief because we have gone over the time limit on these two questions.
Is there a case now for the Government, through our membership of the UN Security Council, to seek to promote some type of moratorium on the use of depleted uranium until comprehensive and conclusive medical research into the possible health implications is available? Will the Minister consider taking up that issue at UN Security Council level?
On the first part of the Deputy's question, I have heard interviews with the Chief of Staff confirming that consultations have taken place with the representative bodies of the Army officers and personnel and that they are satisfied with the approach taken by the Chief of Staff and the Minister to ensure that members of the Army will be given the fullest possible information and assistance required and deemed appropriate, based on the information received. That is continuing to take place.
