Mark Dearey (Green Party)

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.