David Norris (Independent)

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.