Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

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 Organization 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.