Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Senator Dan Boyle

It is a pleasure and a privilege to commence the debate on Second Stage of the Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009. The Seanad has a long and distinguished history of raising issues that would not ordinarily be high on the political priority list. The structure and history of the Seanad allows us to introduce such issues.

The Bill provides the opportunity to build on the work of this and previous Governments in leading international debate on specific means of international conflict resolution. As far back as the late 1950s the then Minister for External Affairs, Mr. Frank Aiken, was prominent in the first anti-nuclear proliferation treaty and Ireland played a proud role in that situation. The more recent example has been the work of this Government when the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs, was the instigator and participant in an international coalition that brought about a treaty on the use of cluster bombs.

The legislation before the House is an attempt to build on that reputation and to agree there is a class of weapon that needs to be treated in a similar way and that Ireland has a moral authority to lead this debate. There are potential international partners with whom we should be willing to coalesce and progress the debate to another level. The Bill is more or less a direct transcription of a Bill that has been passed in the Republic of Costa Rica, one of two countries which have adopted this legislation, the other being Belgium. Progress has been very prominent in New Zealand, a country with which Ireland compares itself regularly in terms of size and with a shared history. We are also nations which are committed to the specific resolution of disputes.

All weapons have a particular characteristic that is both nasty in attempts to cause maximum damage but there is an additional risk that this type of weapon has an environmental after-effect. The theatres in which this particular class of weapon has been used have seen continuing damage to people in the areas involved. There is a need for an international approach to this issue. My colleagues may speak about the nature of the weapons themselves and the effects they have had internationally. My new colleague, Senator Dearey, will speak about a personal experience with regard to international co-operation in the area of anti-nuclear policy and how this might be used to best effect in progressing legislation of this nature.

I look forward to a positive contribution from the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche. I know there has been some discussion within Government about similar types of legislation, particularly with regard to biological weapons. If it is possible to incorporate the principles of this Bill into another Bill, this would be welcomed. It is hoped this Bill can be progressed successfully, as was the cluster bomb legislation. That legislation and international treaty was subsequently followed by legislation in this House and the other House. However, our chosen route has been adopted in at least two other countries.

The Bill is short and contains a definition of the use of uranium as a weapon, which is an important definition. I received a representation from a person in an Irish university enquiring whether the intent of this Bill was to cease research using uranium. This is not the case. We are against the military and violent application of uranium in this fashion. I have to admit I have something of a family history in this regard. My late father worked in a uranium mine in Canada. I am not sure whether it was an altogether pleasant experience for him. It is a link to what we are talking about.

The wider issues associated with the use of uranium in the nuclear industry, including its energy and military applications, would probably be more appropriate subjects for another debate. It is worth pointing out that the application and use of uranium in producing nuclear energy, in particular, is seen as an alternative to the energy difficulties associated with the use of fossil fuels. We need to be aware that uranium, as a depleting resource, is not available in ever-bountiful quantities. The use of depleted uranium for these applications raises another moral issue.

The Bill defines "uranium weapon" and sets out the role, or otherwise, of the State in recognising or using the resource of depleted uranium in this way. Although Ireland is not a militarily aggressive state and does not have a stockpile of weapons, it is important for our legislation in this regard to make a moral statement to the effect we do not believe these weapons are of particular value and that we will not stockpile or use them. There may be a difference in this respect between the legislation I am proposing and the Government's planned legislation on the wider issue of biological weapons. I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say on that issue.

The final element of this legislation, after the definitions and the prohibition on the use of these weapons in the State, discourages the "transport, possession, transfer and use of uranium weapons ... in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Ireland". I hope this position can be strengthened by means of an international treaty. While the Bill may seem like a gesture, if it is passed, Ireland will become the third or fourth country to introduce a prohibition of this nature. It will depend on whether New Zealand progresses to legislation before we do. Perhaps a collection of countries will come together to initiate a UN treaty that would give this measure the widest possible application. If we, as a House and individual Senators, decide to accept the Bill and if the Government is so minded, it will help Ireland's reputation which is built on its sound history in this area. I ask the House to examine the legislation favourably and critically, as it needs a wider debate. I hope its detail will be examined at a subsequent stage.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche. The State has a proud history in introducing legislation of this nature. A Fianna Fáil Minister, Frank Aiken, was one of the instigators of the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty. While the Bill might not be of the same import, it is of huge import, nevertheless.

I am thankful to say Ireland has set its mind against nuclear power. It is a clean and green country. In my view and that of many experts, we do not need to go down the route of producing nuclear power. I am glad that no political party has decided that it represents the way forward. I previously quoted the Germany KiKK study which shows that within a 5 km radius of a nuclear power station there is a 60% increase in the incidence of tumours and an increase of over 100% in the level of childhood leukaemia.

We are aware of phrases such as "dirty bombs", which are often used in the context of discussions on depleted uranium. We are aware that depleted uranium was used in "bunker buster" bombs during the Iraq War. Heavy material is included in such bombs to allow them to burst through concrete before they explode. It is a handy way for countries such as the United States to get rid of a load of uranium used in the production of nuclear power. Unfortunately, such uranium has a radioactive content. It lasts for a hell of a long time and we need to consider how it should be disposed of. Countries generally bury waste uranium in the ground. An alternative means of dealing with it is to send it to other countries. I would not approve of such a method of waste disposal.

I would like to read a snippet from an on-line BBC article on this issue:

One UK Gulf veteran is Ray Bristow, a former marathon runner. In 1999 he told the BBC: "I gradually noticed that every time I went out for a run my distance got shorter and shorter, my recovery time longer and longer. Now, on my good days, I get around quite adequately with a walking stick, so long as it's short distances. Any further, and I need to be pushed in a wheelchair." Ray Bristow was tested in Canada for DU. He is open-minded about its role in his condition. But he says: "I remained in Saudi Arabia throughout the war. I never once went into Iraq or Kuwait, where these munitions were used. But the tests showed, in layman's terms, that I have been exposed to over 100 times an individual's safe annual exposure to depleted uranium."

Many such stories can be read on the Internet and in the various news media around the world. The BBC's reports on the issue are an excellent source of material.

The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland does sterling work. This country's many nuclear-free local authorities have a proud tradition of opposing the development of nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear power. My colleague, Senator Dearey, will speak about the work of such authorities. When I was a member of Galway City Council, I was proud to have a motion on the issue agreed.

We have an opportunity to show global leadership on an issue of international importance. If we take the action proposed in the Bill, it can be taken up by many other countries. Unfortunately, this will not be the first country to do so, as Costa Rica and Belgium have already adopted this approach. Senator Boyle mentioned that some work was being done in New Zealand also. Ireland has a proud tradition of introducing legislation of this nature. It is always good to assume an international leadership role in areas such as this. It is always said Ireland punches above its weight, in terms of its influence, at the United Nations and other international assemblies. We show leadership on international issues of importance.

I hope the Bill will be passed in its entirety. I ask the Minister of State to examine it and help us to guide it through the House.

Senator Maurice Cummins

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche. I am pleased to speak on Second Stage of the Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009. This legislation touches on one of Fine Gael's general principles — its opposition to the use of weapons that cause long-term health and environmental side effects for non-combatants, possibly generations after a conflict has ended. The Minister of State's constituency colleague, Deputy Billy Timmins, introduced the cluster munitions Bill in Dáil Éireann in 2008 to ban the use of cluster munitions. He opposed them because he had seen their effects first hand when serving as an Army officer on United Nations peace support missions. It was a principle for him and for the Fine Gael Party. This Bill aims to achieve the same effect with depleted uranium weapons, which we welcome.

Some question the value of Ireland taking a stand on depleted uranium, just as we took a stand on cluster munitions. They fail to understand the point we in the Oireachtas, on behalf of the people, are making. This is not an issue of practice but of principle, of right and wrong. The Oireachtas is unambiguously stating the use of depleted uranium is wrong, immoral and unacceptable. We are committing ourselves never to use them, never to facilitate their use and never to support their use.

Critics of a ban, of which there are many in the military in the United States and the United Kingdom, claim there is no proof that using depleted uranium weaponry causes long-term damage, citing World Health Organisation reports. The problem with their argument, and those reports, is that they are demanding something that is almost impossible to prove. While Japan voted in favour of the Indonesian UN motion against depleted uranium weapons, it noted no definite conclusions on the issue have been drawn from scientific studies.

In war, scientific controls to measure cause and effect are not possible. One cannot do laboratory conditions on a battlefield. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however. There is clear evidence of the lingering effects of weapons used on the health both of combatants and of those who lived in the area of combat.

In Iraq, where depleted uranium weapons were used in both Gulf Wars, there were 11 cases of cancer per 100,000 people in Basra in 1989. In 2001, there were 116 per 100,000. In 1988, 34 people died of cancer, in 1998, 450, and in 2001, 603. Forty-nine babies with severe congenital malformations were born in Basra between 1995 and 1998; and 224 between 1999 and 2001. Nearly a quarter of babies born at Basra's teaching hospital in 2002 had some form of malformation. The increase in leukaemia in the area around Basra was the first health development noticed by the medical profession following the first Gulf War. Similar statistics could be quoted for other war zones where depleted uranium was used. The effects on soldiers were also striking. The research advisory committee on Gulf War veterans' illnesses in 2004 advised the US Department of Defense:

More than 13 years after the end of Operation Desert Storm, a substantial proportion of veterans of the 1990-1991 Gulf War continue to experience chronic and often debilitating conditions characterised by persistent headaches, cognitive problems, somatic pain, fatigue, gastrointestinal difficulties, respiratory conditions, and skin abnormalities.

It concluded:

A substantial proportion of Gulf War veterans are ill with multi-symptom conditions not explained by wartime stress or psychiatric illness A growing body of research indicates that an important component of Gulf War veterans' illnesses is neurological in character.

Soldiers were given a cocktail of drugs and tablets supposedly to protect themselves yet ordinary Iraqis did not get any, yet both groups still suffered ill effects. Both have one factor in common — contact with depleted uranium.

The irony was that both Gulf Wars and other wars in which depleted uranium was used were officially described as wars of liberation, freedom and ending tyranny. Is there any greater tyranny than to leave those liberated to suffer the chronic health effects of the weapons used in their liberation for decades after the war ends? Is there any greater irony than, in the name of freedom, to destroy the lives of future generations of young people who will not be able to experience that freedom because of these weapons?

In 2003, Professor Brian Spratt, chairman of Britain's prestigious Royal Society's working group on depleted uranium, said, "It is highly unsatisfactory to deploy a large amount of a material that is weakly radioactive and chemically toxic without knowing how much soldiers and civilians have been exposed to it". I would go further. It is not just highly unsatisfactory but wrong, immoral and unacceptable. It must be stopped.

We have heard about weapons of mass destruction. Cluster munitions and depleted uranium weapons are weapons of indiscriminate effect, killing and maiming for years after a war has ended. They create a war without end.

I commend the Green Party for presenting the Bill. I hope this is the start of the Government's support in banning depleted uranium weapons which are causing so much destruction across the world. I also hope the banning of such weapons will be progressed in the United Nations.

Senator Mark Dearey

I am proud to be associated with the introduction of the Prohibition of Depleted Uranium Weapons Bill 2009. The nuclear industry has never given a convincing explanation as to how it deals with the waste generated in the production of electricity in nuclear power stations. Before the 22 February deadline for submissions on the proposed new build of nuclear plants in the United Kingdom, I made a submission to the relevant authorities highlighting this issue. However, the waste question was dodged again as there was no convincing proposal as to how the new plants would deal with resultant nuclear waste. There were more aspirational suggestions around long-term repositories deep underground which would be accepted voluntarily by councils. Only three in the Cumbria region have expressed a cautious interest.

It is abhorrent that one use of the waste from the enrichment process to make nuclear fuel rods is for weapons. It defies belief and is an insult to anyone with a sense of moral rectitude that such weapons could have been conceived, designed and used on European soil during the Balkans conflict. These weapons create civilian causality lists that will stretch far into the future as depleted uranium munitions, exploded or unexploded, linger for many thousands of years after use. If exploded, up to 96% of the resultant aerosol is capable of being ingested through the human lungs. It forms a ceramic owing to the heat it creates and is extremely likely to be airborne and ingested not just by this generation or the next but by many generations to come when soil in the area where bombs have been used is disturbed. It is a depravity that this is considered a legitimate use of the waste product of the nuclear industry. The entirety of the waste is not used in this way but it demonstrates an arrogance and hubris on the part of the industry to think it is in order to pass on the problem to another generation to sort out. I find that reprehensible.

The issue of proliferation is one that civil nuclear countries fail to face up to. There is a connection between civil nuclear power and the proliferation that follows from the exchange of nuclear materials, nuclear technology and nuclear investments. It is disingenuous of those who support civil nuclear power to claim there is no link. It may not be there explicitly, as in the case of Iran, but it is implicit in the industry that downstream technology can avail of the civil use of nuclear part. That must be clearly stated. Proliferation is a consequence of the introduction of civil nuclear power. It must be taken into account when a case is being made for civil nuclear power. I am not a Luddite. I am not saying technology to generate electricity with nuclear power cannot be made safe, although I have not seen it. There are design problems with the new European pressurised reactors and the AP 1000 proposed by Westinghouse for the new nuclear build in Britain. Design problems can be dealt with but the waste issue has never been dealt with. That is the core problem and this Bill tackles the issue head-on. I commend it to the House and the Minister of State. It builds on the experience in Belgium by defining more clearly a depleted uranium weapon. I hope other countries will build on the experience we have had in making this real legislation on the Statute Book.

Senator David Norris

I compliment Senator Boyle and his colleagues on this legislation. It is very important and I welcome the fact that there is a general welcome from the House for this. It always surprises me that, when we confront catastrophes such as the situation in Chile and Haiti, people do not realise there are enough catastrophes without mankind deliberately inflicting other disasters on itself. I mention this because I was involved in the campaign for a ban on cluster bombs. I raised it in this House where we had a good special debate, and I also introduced some material though the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The situation is urgent because I have reports that traces of depleted uranium have been found in some of the children affected by the conflict in Gaza. The Minister of State is sensitive to this issue and is aware of the problems. That is deeply worrying. I was in Iraq before the latest American adventure and even then I met people who claimed they had been affected by depleted uranium. Their claims appear to have had some justification.

Uranium is a naturally occurring element but, as Senator Ó Brolcháin said, this is a by-product of the nuclear industry. It was first manufactured in the 1940s when the United States and the former Soviet Union began a nuclear weapons programme. They discovered it was useful for protecting tanks. They began coating tanks with this material. The Americans discovered it was impossible to penetrate and they developed new weapons technology. We are now confronted with a product of the Second World War and the arms race. People are taking this increasingly seriously. Costa Rica has just introduced legislation along these lines. Seventeen countries have this kind of weapon: Britain, the United States, France, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Turkey, Bahrain, Oman, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand, China, India and Taiwan. The British company, BAE, was producing depleted uranium shells for the British forces until 2003. I am glad to say it has ceased production but some stockpiles are left. There is much highly technical material in this area and I am not a qualified scientist. In addition, I have had a very busy day and my mind is reeling from reading this material. That said, I think I have understood sufficient of it for me to be concerned about the existence of these weapons and very glad Senator Boyle and his colleagues have introduced the Bill.

The Bill would make it illegal to "test, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, sell, deploy, retain or transfer, directly or indirectly, uranium ammunition, uranium armour-plate or other uranium weapons to anyone". It would also make it illegal "acquire or dispose of pre-products for development and production of uranium weapons". Legislation was debated in one of our European neighbours, Belgium, and concerns were expressed lest the text affect some American military installations. I would be very happy if it did so negatively affect the American installations. I compliment Senator Boyle on the definitions which appear to resolve what may have been problematic in other countries. The Bill states:

"Uranium weapon" means a mechanism which serves to destroy or damage objects and uses uranium in its mode of action. Excluded from this definition are weapons that incorporate uranium and whose primary tactical purpose in this incorporation is the production, flux, or enhancement, of nuclear fission or fusion.

This is a form of nuclear waste and this links it to the civilian nuclear energy, as my newly elected colleague said. Nowadays, considering the crisis facing the planet, we cannot completely close our minds to the possibility of nuclear power. It is rather hypocritical of us to be prepared to use the interconnector to introduce electricity that is generated by nuclear capacity, yet turn our faces against nuclear power. That has some echoes of the abortion situation, where we do not allow it in this country but simply export it. In this case we are importing energy.

Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic and radioactive compound used in armour piercing munitions because of its very high density. It is 1.7 times denser than lead, giving these weapons increased range and penetrative power. I bracket these weapons with white phosphorus and cluster bombs. I would like to see white phosphorus banned; it is an appalling weapon. Flechettes are another form of fiendish device. We must keep reviewing these weapons. Depleted uranium is used extensively and in landmines. It was used in the Gulf War, in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo and in the war in Iraq in 2003 by the United States and the United Kingdom. It was also used in Afghanistan in 2001.

The real problem is the dangerous and continuing quality of depleted uranium. When burned it produces an oxide dust that has no natural or historical analogue. This toxic and radioactive dust is composed of two oxides, one insoluble, the other sparingly soluble. The distribution of particle sizes includes sub-micron particles that are readily inhaled into and retained by the lungs. From the lungs uranium compounds are deposited in the lymph nodes, bones, brain and testes. Hard targets hit by DU penetrators are surrounded by this dust and surveys suggest that it can travel many kilometres when re-suspended, as is likely in arid climates such as the desert. The dust can then be inhaled or ingested by civilians and the military alike. In other words, it does not discriminate. The lymph nodes, bones, brain and testes are prime candidates for carcinogenic material and, therefore, cancer is a serious danger. It is believed these weapons are the cause of sharp increases in some forms of cancer such as breast cancer and lymphoma and this is substantially documented. It is also worrying in the Balkans because there are suggestions that despite the fact DU is only sometimes soluble, the corroding penetrators have been held to be likely to affect ground-water. That is a continuing and serious problem.

The chief radiological hazard from Uranium 238 is alpha radiation. When inhaled or ingested, alpha radiation is the most damaging form of ionising radiation. I note the implications of some investments of large capitalist groups. For example, the Royal Bank of Scotland is heavily involved in financing the use of this material and its Ulster Bank subsidiary bears looking at. Bodies such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection put themselves forward. They are not pure, as they are too closely related to some of these big businesses. In addition, they use average male body format when they calculate the impact of DU, ignoring completely the fact that ionising radiation has a much more substantial and negative impact on pregnant women and children. I would be careful about these groups with grand sounding names.

As U238 decays into its daughter products thorium and protactinium, both beta and gamma radiation are released, increasing the radiation burden further. Therefore, DU particles must be considered as a dynamic mixture of radioactive isotopes. Inside the body alpha radiation is incredibly disruptive. The heavy, highly charged particles leave a trail of ionised free radicals in their wake, disrupting finely tuned cellular processes. Like many other heavy metals, such as lead, chromium, nickel and mercury, uranium exposure can be damaging to health, particularly the kidney and other soft tissue areas. Recent studies in hamsters found that these products make it more likely that the DNA will be repaired incorrectly, which leads to replicated errors, and this is a classic formula for carcinogensis.

As a result it is not entirely surprising that the UN General Assembly passed a resolution highlighting serious health concerns over DU and, in May 2008, 94% of MEPs in the European Parliament strengthened four previous calls for a moratorium by calling for a DU ban treaty in a wide-ranging resolution. I compliment my colleagues for treating this serious and sometimes technical subject with the concern it deserves and for presenting this important Bill to the House.

Senator Ann Ormonde

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this important legislation and compliment Senator Boyle on bringing it forward. As Senator Norris said, it is technical. I will concentrate on health issues. Ireland has joined international efforts to try to establish the level of risk from the use of DU. While as yet there may not be absolute scientific proof, I am assured that the Government shares the concerns raised at the United Nations about the potential danger to human health. I accept there are many peaceful uses for DU across a range of sectors, including as a radiation shield on medical equipment. However, its military use causes great concern. The break up of the uranium when weapons such as tank busting rockets and missiles hit their targets, creates DU dust. People in the immediate area can inhale this dust and I fear the health impacts. In addition many of the missiles can miss their targets and lie in the soil for long periods. Dug up later by construction workers, farmers or even children playing in derelict sites, they can be a risk years after the weapon was fired.

Ireland, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Department, took a global lead in outlawing another weapon which can maim or even kill people decades later. The ban on cluster munitions was a diplomatic triumph for this country. I recall taking a keen interest in this subject when it was debated in the House and I am delighted once again to be associated with a campaign to ban weapons that could impact on our health. At all times, I make it my business to stand up to make sure such weapons are banned. I encourage the Government to examine carefully the threat posed by weapons that use DU and that can generate DU dust.

While we have never used such weapons, it is important that we should continue to play an active role in efforts to establish the level of threat. Ireland should also take the necessary steps to protect both military personnel and civilians who can be caught up or trapped in a war zone. While science may say there is no great risk currently, we must be sure of our facts. A threat can remain well into the future and affect people for decades to come.

Both the United Nations and the European Parliament have in the past year called for further studies of the threat. Following our successful brokering of the cluster bombs treaty, I hope Ireland can use the expertise it gained to play a role in analysing the research and in helping to decide the necessary response. The World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Agency are also undertaking work in this area. In addition, many NGOs and civil society groups have taken a lead on this issue. I encourage the Minister to ensure we are fully informed of the outcome of any studies. We must establish the risk primarily to human health but also to the environment. If a risk is established then we must act swiftly and move towards a ban. There should be a general welcome for the legislation to address this serious issue, given the impact it could have on our health. I am delighted Senator Boyle has introduced the Bill and I wish him well. I hope it will be passed without opposition.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I welcome the Minister of State. I commend Senators Boyle and O'Malley and former Senator de Búrca for initiating the Bill. As countries and legislatures across Europe and the world attempt to clean up the financial and economic mess we have witnessed over the past three years, it is important, at the same time, that we do not lose sight of the fact that pressing global issues predated the current economic crisis. Successive Governments have played a positive role on the world stage in advancing the prohibition of weapons of this nature and it is reassuring that this approach remains a feature of Government policy. I commend the Senators' approach in bringing the Bill before the House. It is short and concise and its enactment would send an important message about Ireland's moral values, what we consider acceptable in times of war and the measures we deem necessary to establish a global and lasting peace.

According to the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, approximately 20 countries are thought to have uranium weapons in their arsenals. These include the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Russia, Belarus, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Taiwan. It is unacceptable that three member states of the European Union have these weapons in their arsenals in 2010. I find it particularly surprising that Greece maintains a stockpile of these weapons. According to the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons:

These were to be destroyed with the rest of Greece's landmine stocks by March 2008, as of March 2007 no stocks had been destroyed. Greece informed landmine monitors that they were having technical problems as the ADAM mines had to be frozen before they can be destroyed.

If Greece is having technical problems, I suggest it look for help to its neighbours in the European Union. Perhaps we can offer technical advice. I know the Army is involved in giving advice to foreign armies in the area of weapons decommissioning. I am not sure whether this is an area in which we could offer technical expertise, but I expect that if not us, some other European Union country could provide Greece with the technical advice it requires.

It is disturbing that, despite repeated calls from the European Parliament for a total ban on the stockpiling and use of depleted uranium ammunitions, France and the United Kingdom have continued to refuse to accede to such a ban. I urge the Senators concerned and the Government as a whole to use the enactment of the Bill to exert pressure at European Union level to have a ban introduced and a binding international treaty put in place.

Unfortunately, the United States has, as in so many disarmament and human rights issues, utterly failed to take a lead or even lend its considerable moral, financial and political weight to the advancement of this cause. It needs to re-examine its attitude to international treaties such as this. Included in the list of treaties signed but not ratified by it are the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and, of course, the Kyoto Protocol. There is hope that at least some of these issues may be addressed during the Administration of President Obama. However, it is immoral and unacceptable that countries such as Ireland should simply do nothing in the light of our — admittedly small — role on the world stage.

Many commentators contend we are witnessing the decline of the primacy of the United States in global affairs. While this presents modern societies with many challenges, it also presents opportunities to redefine what might be considered morally and politically acceptable during times of peace and war. The European Union has been invested with considerable collective, economic and soft power to push for these changes. With its member states, it must decide what kind of player it wishes to be on the world stage. Ireland can and should take a leading role in defining and articulating a more progressive and cohesive foreign policy script for the Union. Such a script should hold no place, tacit or otherwise, for the retention of such destructive and devastating weapons.

The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons reported positively on the concise and considered nature of the Bill brought forward by Senators Boyle and O'Malley and former Senator de Búrca. The Bill states:

The ICBUW believes the text will "help to ‘future-proof' any eventual legislation against the development of new conventional uranium weapons." I must admit to a limited understanding of the definitional and prescriptive considerations the Senators faced but the endorsements from groups such as the ICBUW and individuals such as Denis Halliday are most welcome.

It is also encouraging that the following provision is set out explicitly in the text of the Bill: "The transport, possession, transfer and use of uranium weapons and uranium armour-plate in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Ireland is prohibited". I support the Bill wholeheartedly and commend the Senators concerned on bringing it before the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Dick Roche)

I was enjoying the debate so much that I would have willingly waited to speak. The top of a ministerial script often includes the advice, "check against delivery". This is one of those occasions on which the advice applies. I am immensely impressed by the debate and do not say that in a patronising way. I sincerely believe it is better to light a penny candle than to curse the dark. As has been said by all those who have spoken, Ireland has a long record of being willing to punch above its weight and enter into an area where caution might occasionally be advised from our Administration that might suggest it is either too early or too sensitive an issue for Ireland to intervene. I get the sense that the House will not divide on the Bill and that there is unanimous support on all sides, which I welcome. It appears it will move without division to Committee Stage and I look forward to listening to what will be said on that Stage.

The Government has carefully followed the debate in recent years on the possible health and environmental hazards of using depleted uranium. We share the concerns raised in various international fora. As several Members said, it is an extraordinary reflection on the human condition that so much ingenuity and brain power can be used for such destructive purposes. As Senator Norris said, as if the world is not visited by enough natural disasters, manpower needs to spend so much time, ingenuity and money inflicting further disasters. As my personal concerns about the use of depleted uranium in armaments are a matter of record, I am very pleased to be present for this debate.

Ireland voted in favour of Resolutions 62/30 and 63/26 at the United Nations in 2007 and 2008. These resolutions requested the Secretary General to seek the views of member states and relevant international organisations on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium. I was struck by the point made by Senator Dearey. We have enough problems with uranium, given that it has a half-life longer than the time that has passed from the time of Christ to this day. The nuclear industry has not even begun to address this issue. We should stop to think about what has happened to human kind in that period. If there had been nuclear dumps in the past 2,000 years, how much devastation would have been wrought on the human race? The precautionary principle applies in this case — I was surprised it was not mentioned. As Senator Ormonde said, many of the weapons fired find their way into watercourses and the land where they lie for a long time.

Ireland shares the concerns raised at the General Assembly about the potential risks related to the use of depleted uranium. Somewhat counter-intuitively the reports produced noted that, while a number of studies had been conducted by the relevant international organisations, no definitive conclusion had been drawn on the potential adverse effects. As a layperson with a reasonable amount of scientific knowledge — I credit myself with a certain amount of common sense — I am of the view that pumping depleted radiation into the earth can hardly be good. The reports noted that Ireland would continue to closely monitor developments in the analysis of the risks associated with the use of armaments and ammunition containing depleted uranium. As several Senators noted, uranium is a naturally occurring and ubiquitous heavy metal. Senator Boyle made the important point, which is never factored into the debate, that it is a material that is in limited supply. Interestingly, the depletion of the world's supply of uranium is probably even more challenging than that of hydrocarbons. Uranium is present in its natural form in drinking water and in food. In the nuclear industry uranium, after the enrichment process, is referred to as depleted uranium. I agree with Senator Dearey. The reality is that this is a cynical way of recycling waste. It is not what any of us who would propose recycling want.

As Senator Ormonde noted, depleted uranium has its peaceful uses including as counterweights or ballast in aircraft, radiation shields in medical equipment used for radiation therapy and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. The physical and chemical properties of uranium also make it suitable for military uses, and that is the nub of the issue.

A number of Senators noted the effects of depleted uranium when it is used in armaments and they are worth repeating. On impact with targets, depleted uranium penetrators ignite, break up into fragments and form an aerosol, DU dust, whose size depends on the angle of the impact, the velocity of the penetrator and the temperature. The main potential hazard associated with depleted uranium ammunition is the inhalation of aerosol created when the ammunition hits an armoured target. The size, distribution and chemical composition of the aerosol varies but, as Senator Dearey noted, up to 96% of it can enter the lungs of people who are in the vicinity, and that cannot but have a deleterious effect. There is a good deal of research, some of which I would regard as somewhat suspect, that suggests the jury is still out, but the material we do have, and it has been put on record of this House, for example, the extraordinary increases in cancers, would suggest this is an area that the world should take more seriously.

Regarding exposure to depleted uranium, there have been studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in the Gulf War and during the Balkan conflicts. While DU itself is not highly radioactive, it is none the less a toxic metal and legitimate health concerns arise. A number of Gulf War veterans have inoperable fragments of DU embedded in their systems and because it does not seem to have had an immediate effect other than chronic pain, some of the reports seem to support the thesis that this is not something about which we should be concerned.

I believe the use of this particular material is cynical and would ask questions about some of the research that has been done. There is persuasive material about long-term health risks to the wider population. As I have indicated, the Government is strongly supportive of the view, proposed by the United Nations Secretary General, that there must be serious studies in this area. The Department of Foreign Affairs is following closely the valuable work of civil society on the issue of depleted uranium. Officials from the Department met a delegation from the international campaign to ban uranium weapons in June of last year and had a useful discussion. We communicated our views that to achieve an international ban, as they aspire to do, it will be necessary to establish conclusively the negative impact of depleted uranium. That is very much the direction in which many who oppose the use of this material are pushing the debate. The studies and the work by reputable international organisations, including the World Health Organisation and the IAEA, will be critical, therefore, in quantifying the risks and conveying them internationally.

I thank the Senators for their work. As I have said here and on previous occasions, I cannot understand the reason it is necessary to introduce this particular material and to inflict yet another horror on human kind. This is a good Bill and I am pleased that it seems there will not be a division on it and that it will go to committee. I will be very interested in the output of that committee's deliberations.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I add my voice to those who congratulated the Green Party and Senator Boyle and Senator Dearey on introducing the Bill. I am delighted to hear that the Minister of State believes it is a good Bill. On that basis I assume it will be accepted and I hope it will get through the House because the use of depleted uranium in munitions is controversial because of questions about potential long-term health effects. Normal functioning of the kidneys, brain, liver, heart and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal.

This initiative is very worthwhile. Ireland acts as a beacon state on the world stage when it comes to development aid, giving large per capita amounts. We have maintained that standard very well up to now and I hope we are able to continue to do so. Such an approach encourages, or perhaps embarrasses, bigger countries to give more to the world’s poor. This Bill to prohibit depleted nuclear weapons could have a similar effect in encouraging countries to give up these controversial weapons. I realise what we do might be said to be whistling in the dark and not having a major effect but there is no doubt it sets a standard.

There is still so much we do not know about depleted uranium. I was reading one story of an American Gulf War veteran who currently takes ten prescriptions. He has memory loss, chronic fatigue, stomach and sinus problems, muscle aches, vision loss, headaches and infections. He is one of approximately 200,000 American Gulf War veterans who claim to suffer from mysterious Gulf War syndrome. Depleted uranium is just one of the suspected causes, including toxic fumes from detonated weapons depots and pills which soldiers took to protect themselves from nerve gases and pesticides.

We must remember that there is not total consensus on the danger of depleted uranium and we heard the case being made. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, which was established by the United Nations, stated: "Based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts". It further stated:

It is a common misconception that radioactivity is the main health hazard of DU rather than chemical toxicity. Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage.

United Nations Environmental Protection, UNEP, studies in Kosovo in 2001, in Serbia and Montenegro in 2002 and in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2003, to which IAEA experts contributed, found it was highly unlikely that a reported increase in the risk of cancer in the Balkan regions could be associated with the residue of depleted uranium munitions used during the war in the mid-1990s. It found the probability of significant exposure to the local population was very low. There are views on it, therefore.

Local doctors have their own reports. In the whole of Kosovo the cancer rate before 1999 was ten among 300,000 people and today stands at 20 among 60,000 people. That is a huge increase. An alarming rise in cancer cases has been recorded also in neighbouring Bosnia-Herzegovina, where depleted uranium was used by NATO against Bosnian Serb forces earlier in 1995. According to official figures, more than 300 people from two districts of Sarajevo died of cancer from 1996 until 2000. It is not proven but there is enough evidence to suggest there is a link.

The other side of the story is perhaps most evident in former war zones. The real hazard for the Iraqi population these days is not so much terrorism, occupation or oil but cancer. Cancer is spreading like wildfire in Iraq. There is strong evidence that the United States army used depleted uranium in Iraq. Thousands of infants are now being born with deformities. Doctors say they are struggling to cope with the rise of cancer and birth defects, especially in cities subjected to heavy American and British bombardment. Falluja was heavily bombarded by the United States in 2004 and as many as 25% of newborn infants there have serious abnormalities, including congenital anomalies, brain tumours and defects in the spinal cord. There is no definite proof of the cause but the link seems very credible. The cancer rate in the province of Babil, south of Baghdad, has risen from 500 diagnosed cases in 2004 to 9,082 in 2009. Iraqi doctors and some Western academics say the massive quantities of depleted uranium used in US and British bombs are not unconnected to the sharp increase in cancer rates. Dr. Ahmad Hardan, who served as a special scientific adviser to the World Health Organisation, the United Nations and the Iraqi Ministry of Health, believes there is scientific evidence linking depleted uranium to cancer and birth defects.

Depleted uranium is obviously a much more tangible problem in countries that have been affected by war. I understand the Iraqi Ministry for Human Rights is filing a lawsuit against the United States and Great Britain for allegedly using more than 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium in Iraq. Obviously we must remain vigilant on issues of public safety from radiation exposure and take on board all reports which are involved in assessing any possible radiological effects from depleted uranium but given the massive rise in cancers in areas where depleted uranium has been used, it is difficult not to make the logical link. We must do our best to encourage countries to abandon the use of depleted uranium. I hope this Bill will send out a very forceful message.

Israel is one of the biggest offenders in this respect. The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza has stated that the consequences of the three week conflict continue to affect the lives of the people of Gaza eight months later. Dr. Mowaiyaj Hassanen, director of al-Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip, said the use of internationally banned weapons, including white phosphorus and depleted uranium, has resulted in a series of abnormalities in newborn babies in Gaza, ranging from heart defects to brain abnormalities. It is shocking that babies and children are often the ones who are suffering from the effects of depleted uranium. If only to draw awareness to this fact, this Bill is very worthwhile.

Although not in the strictest sense related to this motion, it is worthwhile to mention Bill Gates and his new project to make use of depleted uranium. The founder of Microsoft, Gates is probably better known these days for his role in the fight against malaria. He has emphasised that even more important than developing vaccines are new energy technologies such as nuclear power and next generation batteries. To meet his 2050 deadline for cutting all carbon emissions, he is promoting a nuclear approach called terrapower, which will develop nuclear reactors that run primarily on natural or depleted uranium rather than enriched uranium. With un-enriched fuel, the reactors could be loaded up with fuel and sealed for 30 to 60 years.

Switching from enriched fuel would reduce the risks associated with nuclear proliferation and transportation as well as the amount of nuclear waste primarily because the stockpile of uranium would go farther. Depleted uranium is a waste product in the enrichment process. Terrapower's reactors need some enriched uranium at the beginning but only to initiate a reaction. The switch would also mean that the available supplies of uranium could be exploited to provide power for centuries or even thousands of years, which is far longer than what can be done with enriched uranium.

Regardless of whether we like it, nuclear power is making something of a comeback worldwide. I would like to debate the pros and cons of nuclear energy and while I am aware the Green Party is not very enthusiastic about it, other Greens around the world are considering its use. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive approximately 30 applications for new reactors over the next few years. Prominent members of the green movement in the United Kingdom have come out in favour of nuclear power after having a change of heart from an anti-nuclear stance to believing that atomic power is a necessary part of the energy mix in the struggle to cut carbon emissions and halt global warming. Chris Goodall wrote in the London Independent last week:

The green movement must learn to love nuclear power... Including nuclear power in this mix will make a low-carbon and energy-secure future easier to achieve. Nuclear power has substantial drawbacks, but the consequences of not embracing it are likely to be significantly worse.

Bill Gates's new initiative does not use rare, enriched uranium, as today's nuclear reactors do, but regular old uranium, including the kind that is currently treated as waste. That means reactors could use depleted uranium sources as fuel and produce far less waste in the process. This is a very interesting development which we should follow with interest over the next few years. I welcome the Bill and hope it does not stop here.

Senator Dan Boyle

I thank Senators for the support they have shown to this Bill and commend them on their considered contributions. The research they put into preparing their speeches reveals a common belief that we can and should address this issue. I am grateful for the intellectual investment Senators have made in the Bill. Senators Cummins, Norris, Ormonde, Hannigan, Quinn, Ó Brolcháin and Dearey have demonstrated the role this House can play. I thank the Minister of State, in particular, for the support he has offered. As a Member of this House, he was one of the first parliamentarians in the world to move a motion in support of Aung San Suu Kyi. This country can play a valuable role in fostering debates, identifying clear injustices and taking a collegial approach to the resolution of international conflicts.

This evening's contributions have comprised various descriptions of the moral and medical effects of these weapons. While it was pointed out that research in this area is inconclusive, there seems to be a wide variation between the studies conducted on behalf of agencies with a vested interest in the continued use of these weapons and the information acquired by doctors on the ground in areas where the weapons have been deployed. Senator Quinn outlined particularly stark statistics on the increase in the incidence of cancers in the Balkans and Iraq. His evidence appears to indicate a close causal relationship which should give rise to concern. Of course, the findings of these surveys are irrelevant to those who suffer from the cancers, whether caused by high levels of radiation or heavy metals. This type of weaponry is at the heart of the difficulties they are experiencing and we need to ensure they are put out of commission in the immediate future.

Several speakers highlighted the difficulties involved in stopping these weapons. Senator Norris noted man's ingenuity to inflict pain on himself even when dealing with natural catastrophes. He has pointed out that 17 countries have access to depleted uranium weapons. We need to build coalitions with other countries to make sure they understand these weapons are not accepted internationally. That will be a hard sell. Senator Hannigan pointed out that three of the aforementioned 17 countries are EU member states. Ironically given the economic circumstances we all face, Greece is one of these countries.

Through his campaigning for the Lisbon treaty, the Minister of State has built an expertise on the type of coalition building that will allow Ireland's voice to be heard on these issues. I am confident that tonight's debate will build on that experience. It will allow other legislators to examine what we are doing today and pass similar legislation, just as we have gained from and, as Senator Norris said, improved on legislation passed in Belgium dealing with the definition of the weapons in question, how they might be categorised and, as far as this jurisdiction is concerned, not used, transported or portrayed in a particular way.

On these grounds, the Seanad has done itself proud and shown why it exists. It engages in debate slightly outside the temperament of the nation but gives consideration to issues that otherwise would not be considered. In the 90 or so minutes of debate we have provided a justification for the existence of this House and helped to progress legislation that otherwise would not have been given attention. I am grateful to the Members who contributed to the debate and for the support forthcoming.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Mar 2010