Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this topic. The first point I want to make concerns the structure of the debate but before I proceed, I congratulate the Minister of State and wish him every success in his appointment.

It has always intrigued me that international arms are discussed within the ambit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The issues that arise fundamentally concern human rights, but as I listened to the Minister of State's speech, the question arose for me of whether he is applying the human rights test or the impediments to exports test. Depending on the test used, one arrives at different positions.

In terms of the human rights test, significant progress has been made on international conflicts in a number of areas. The most successful international instrument is without doubt the Ottawa Convention, which is important with regard to the prohibition on landmines because it mentions their production, sale and distribution. Effectively, it contains a knowledge of distribution clause which makes it very different from other conventions in that it is more implementable. If, for example, an aircraft carrying landmines passed through any Irish airport, a particular kind of offence is committed. It is one of the strongest conventions and has been proven successful.

Applying the test in the limited time available to me, why do I say the convention stands apart in terms of its strength? It is because the others are weaker. I will immediately make a statement regarding the European Union. There is a deficit regarding information pertaining to the common foreign and security policy but no information is less shared than that relating to arms exports. As a previous speaker said, this is a major, highly competitive industry and I do not have time to go into minute detail but I will explain the context of what I refer to as the double deficit in accountability.

Many matters in the European Union are handled intergovernmentally and a huge deficit therefore arises between member governments and their parliamentary assemblies. Regarding common foreign and security policy, there is the additional deficit created by the fact that many decisions are delegated. For example, permanent representatives in Brussels take decisions on some matters and further sub-groups take decisions relating to some security matters. Not all members of the sub-group are given information relating to arms sales and distribution.

The behaviour of the European Union regarding the disciplines and the common good is scandalous. The issue of Burma was raised by previous speakers and people should ask how German components find their way into military equipment used by the junta there. One of the great scandals of our time, and a tragedy of which I am all too aware due to briefings I receive, is what is happening regarding Africa. One fifth of global debt is arms related and the greatest shows and sales conferences are aimed at the poorest countries. The previous speaker correctly referred to the €1 trillion spent on arms that, as I said, constitutes one fifth of world debt. The 200 wars that have taken place since the end of the Second World War are increasingly ethnic conflicts within states that are inundated with arms, many of which are sourced in the European Union. The European Union does not share information relating to arms exports nor do Germany, France and Britain. In the text of the speech a balance is attempted that does not begin with tests of human rights or international law but instead seeks to test what can be done that will least impede an export activity. The export of arms is an immoral activity and one from which we should dissociate ourselves.

I welcome this Bill but it is important that we scrutinise ministerial orders. There are suggestions one must be satisfied with the judgment reached on the bona fides of an applicant for a licence, but I reject this. If one goes down that road one will find oneself unable to inspect planes at Shannon Airport because it would be deemed insulting to a friendly nation. Governments must be entitled to seek, publish and share information, and I do not believe a sensitive export criterion should take precedence over a human rights criterion or a criterion relating to international law. These are the tests of the legislation that we will apply in scrutiny of the ministerial instruments.

There are colourful passages in the Minister's speech on the fall of the Iron Curtain and the democratisation of central and eastern Europe. These may be accurate and I welcome the democratisation of all parts of Europe, but the area of arms production, distribution and sales is the least accountable area of the European Union through the mechanisms of the European Parliament, the common foreign and security policy and from member states back to their parliaments.

We must hold firm on the principle of knowing the end-use of arms and components because it is only through knowing the end-use that one can answer questions relating to the circumstances and conditions under which the product was sold. If one decides it is not necessary to inquire as to the end-use of products sold one leaves oneself open. People will find it strange that I say this but there may be technologies that developed for military use but can be adapted to peaceful civilian use. It is important that we allow for such possibilities but they are not relevant here as we are discussing whether we should take shelter in an inadequate European Union system or be satisfied in, by and large, asking the right questions without monitoring the end result, which leaves us open to criticism.

The explanatory memorandum relating to sections 3 and 5 of this Bill refers to the European Union common position 2003/468/cfsp, common foreign and security policy, of 23 June 2003. The House knows that this is an example of the absence of accountability through the intergovernmental conference process. Regarding the joint action referred to in section 5, 401/2000 of 22 June 2000, parliaments in Europe cannot point to where such matters are discussed. For example, the common foreign and security policy is completely veiled regarding accountability. To my knowledge, no action of the Commission is discoverable or transparent, according to the interpretation and implementation mentioned in sections 3 and 5. This means that, in practice, some of the largest, formerly imperial, exporters of arms, Britain, France, Germany and Italy, never share information relating to arms exports with any Irish representative, departmental official, parliamentary official or European official. This stands as a contradiction to the position taken by Ireland.

I reject phrases that creep into speeches referring to Ireland as a small country and suggesting we remember how small we are. If Ireland took the position it took on the non-proliferation treaty at the United Nations in the great days of Irish foreign affairs or the position it took on the Ottawa Convention it would become clear that small countries have the greatest interest in peace because they do not make their cases through the threat of force and the disgraceful arms industry. We should eschew such languages in speeches.

Regarding the reputation of Ireland, references were made in the speech to the threatening environment in which we live. We will be called upon to take a position soon on the nuclear agreement between the United States, US and India. This is a decision that will be taken by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, of which Ireland is a member, and a single negative vote will veto the agreement. The Nuclear Suppliers Group will be asked to make an exception to permit the development of 14 nuclear reactors that will not be open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Government has escaped scrutiny so far by going from one meeting to another without having to declare its position on this matter. The choice facing the Government is to stand with the non-proliferation agreement or with new mechanisms that will undermine that famous agreement with which Ireland is associated. There are good aspects to this Bill and I generally welcome it, but we must work further on it on Committee Stage.

Most of the NGOs and critics who have written on this area have mentioned that it is not direct breaches with which we are dealing but issues of brokerage, which raise the matters of incorporation, residency and citizenship. The Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Foreign Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Employment should co-operate to make sure that all capacity is removed from any such individuals in order to make it impossible for an individual to live here, own shares and indirectly be contributing to the scandalous and disgraceful activities which we, in the mainstream, want to prevent. I will now hand over to Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

See this speech in context