Dan Boyle (Green Party)

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.