Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

First, I join with others in welcoming the opportunity to discuss this issue. Before I go further I pay tribute to Pax Christi, which has been informing Deputies and Senators about the issue, and particularly Tony D'Costa, who has worked not just on this issue but previously on the landmines matter. That work should be supported.

The two issues which arise are important. There is an issue of principle, that is, whether we want from the conference a complete and universal ban with no exceptions. That is a fundamental. An issue arising from this is a matter of definition. There will be a struggle over definition, represented by countries on one side such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which will seek to retain certain forms of cluster munitions. It would be pointless to imagine this will not happen.

When we speak of a universal ban without exception, a second issue arises of how we will achieve this goal. Previous speakers made interesting remarks drawing parallels with the Ottawa Convention on landmines, which is interesting in this regard. I was a member of the Cabinet at that time and I propose to refer to some of the experience of Dick Spring in the influencing of that convention.

The second point is therefore a simple one — how do we achieve a complete and universal ban without exceptions? As a matter of housekeeping, I indicate that if we were to operate very quickly, we could make a statutory instrument. A legal opinion was advised to me that we could take Statutory Instrument 175/1996, the order entitled Explosive (Landmines) Order 1996, and model a statutory instrument on that. Why would we do so? I will turn to the Fine Gael Bill in a moment. A political choice has to be made but we would act in this way precisely for the reason one influenced the Ottawa Convention. We would do so because we want to lay down a kind of template to govern the outcome of the conference. The political choice therefore is one as to whether we wait for the committee, wait nine months and respond to a conference which we have missed the opportunity of influencing. That is the political reality.

I would favour the drafting of a statutory instrument so as to have it quickly in place before the conference takes place but I am still happy to support a Second Stage reading of the Fine Gael proposal. I congratulate Deputy Timmins on bringing the Fine Gael Party with him. If the Bill passed Second Stage, I would, on behalf of the Labour Party, propose significant amendments on Committee Stage. They would perhaps be reflective of the motion, in my name and that of Senator Norris, passed by the foreign affairs committee. That included a number of issues but I would stress one particular factor. If we go for a universal ban on cluster munitions because of the reasons we have heard from speakers on all sides, we must therefore be consistent and refuse to have our troops use them, even if they are involved in joint operations with other forces, be it in terms of peace establishment, peace making, peacekeeping and so forth.

I come therefore to two principles which exist. One is incredibly important and it is tragic it even must be mentioned. This is the sheer nature of cluster bombs, attractive-looking colourful things lying on the ground to be picked up by children or anybody. We can see the consequences in terms of their widespread diffusion, like droplets, which can lead to the removal of limbs and death. Some 80 million of these were dropped in Vietnam by the United States, and a million were dropped in southern Lebanon in the last 48 hours before peace. I agree with speakers who have stated the purpose of such bombs is to clear areas rather than achieve significant military advantage. I do not need to repeat figures which have been given already about the fact that, as a military exercise, these munitions are quite insufficient in many respects and in terms of their projected aim. The real aim is to make an area unusable, with 98% casualties, as has been pointed out. There is no study to suggest civilian casualties are less than 90%. We are agreed on that. If we are now going to address the issue of definition and technology, it must be such that people cannot bring new forms of cluster munition into existence. That is the issue of definition and there is nothing vague in it. It is also perfectly clear that France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands will want to go down that road.

The next part of the issue relates to making a ban universal, which includes principles such as interoperability. What is done in that regard? Looking at the replies given in this House by my colleague, the then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Deputy Dick Spring, the slow process we went through going to the endpoint of the Ottawa Convention on landmines becomes clear. At a crucial stage it was very important Norway and Ireland did just what is now being advocated and offered a template which would govern the outcome. That was the positive, constructive way to go.

That is the choice this evening. We either act before the conference gets going and before there are divisions or else suggest that we will, in the margins, be able to make such a case that when it comes out, it will have brought us to a point where a new principle of international humanitarian law will be satisfied.

That is a risk we should not take. On behalf of the Labour Party, I received a legal opinion after the motion in my name and that of Senator Norris was unanimously passed by the foreign affairs committee that legally, we did not need to draft legislation and we could make a statutory instrument which would have an influence. I also looked at the nature of statutory instruments in that regard. In 1996, when there was a discussion here, it was possible to make an order under the Explosives Act 1875, which had been transferred through other instruments to current and contemporary law. It banned the uses of certain kinds of anti-personnel munitions.

We should be clear. As I have stated, the Fine Gael motion might shy away from tackling issues of real importance and substance but I could deal with these on Committee Stage. I urge support for Deputy Timmins's Bill this evening and the Labour Party will vote for it. It should be allowed to proceed to the next stage and I am not at all convinced of the alternative process, namely to form a committee, which would then issue an opinion, which would influence the possible heads of a Bill within nine months. We are not even offered a conclusion. The argument is that one should not act as one will influence the conference taking place in Croke Park between 19 May and 30 May next. However, that is precisely what we want to do.

Considering it another way, if we lost an issue of principle we would go to our own committee, preparing legislation with the horse having bolted. There are agreements between us in issues of principle and the consequence of cluster munitions on the planet, but there is a difference in the political tactics. Given the experience we have had with the landmines convention and what we know of the process as discussed in this House, we should act in advance to get the best possible outcome. There is significant public support for securing a total prohibition on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of cluster munitions, and it is incumbent on us to speak clearly and unequivocally on the matter.

Another point we should stress is the hypocrisy involved in those who sign up to international treaties which on the one hand accept the principle of international jurisprudence with a flourish of rhetoric but at the same time come to a conference seeking such departures from obligation as would enable the defeat of the principle involved. The use of cluster munitions is one of the great obscenities of our time.

Ireland has an opportunity to recover the moment to which I refer. It should be recalled that we find ourselves in circumstances similar to those which obtained during the Ottawa process, when Ireland worked with Norway to save an adequate outcome. At present, Austria and Belgium have acted in advance. Belgium is significant because it used to be a producer and supplier of landmines. The effect of the previous global debate on landmines changed the position to such an extent that Belgium is now one of the two European countries which have taken the initiative on cluster munitions.

I wish to comment on the use of cluster munitions, which are notorious in the context of their imprecision. For example, studies show that they are only 40% effective in the context of exploding immediately after impact. This means that 60% of these munitions are left lying around to do incredible damage among civilian populations over a long period. When the debate on landmines took place, Boutros Boutros-Ghali stated that they are weapons of mass destruction in slow motion. One could almost repeat that statement in respect of cluster munitions, which can be picked up by children long after military conflicts have ended.

Let us reflect on the jurisprudence involved here. After a ceasefire, a cessation of hostilities, a potential agreement or the possible definition of territory, part of a landmass can be left unusable for the civilian population, the members of which can be placed at inordinate and indiscriminate risk. The people to whom I refer are protected by all the international conventions and may not have participated in the original conflict. That is what is obscene about the cluster munitions and it turns to ashes the arguments of those who use them regarding any of the international treaties they may have signed.

I agree that it is obscene that funds aimed at providing people with security in their old age should be invested in the production of cluster munitions. Ireland's hands are not clean. Those responsible for the National Pension Reserve Fund have already invested €500 million in companies that produce cluster bombs. I refer here to Raytheon, General Dynamics, 1-3 Communications in the United States, EADS in the Netherlands and Thales in France. If we are serious about banning these munitions, we must halt such investment.

On Second Stage of the Control of Exports Bill, I referred to the importance of eliminating brokerage. I welcome the Minister of State's assurance that brokerage among those living outside the jurisdiction can be controlled. Again, however, it is not acceptable to call for the abolition of these munitions while, as has been the case to date through investments made by the National Pensions Reserve Fund, benefiting from their production.

I am delighted the Minister for Foreign Affairs is facilitating the convention that will take place at Croke Park and I pay tribute to him for doing so. Equally, however, I recognise that the United States, Russia and China will seek exceptions at that convention. The Minister has already hinted at two exceptions in respect of definitions, which would allow new technological forms that would have the same effect and a period of transition. If we agree with the moral case and the international legal case and are aware of the consequences, how then can we justify such exceptions?

When I served as a Minister, we received reports from a United Nations debate during which the then Secretary General asked how many more million landmines would be produced and how many more women and children would be put at risk. Why should a period of transition be needed if one accepts the force of the argument? Would it not be practical for the Minister to employ this as a template of his definitions and statements regarding universal applicability and adopt it as an opening position for the conference he will host and chair?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs must explain why he is not using SI 175 of 1966 as a basis for his actions. I have received legal advice to the effect that this instrument is the fastest possible way to proceed because there is no need to undergo the drafting process. As regards the enabling legislation relating to the use of such a statutory instrument, this was all discovered when the legislation relating to landmines was debated.

I disagree with Fine Gael's Bill in the context of the principle of interoperability. If the universal banning of cluster munitions is to have real moral purchase, we must insist on the principle of interoperability. In that context, no Irish troops should work in partnership with troops from countries which continue to defend the use of such munitions. That is the position of the Labour Party and it would form the basis of any legislation I would draft.

The concept of interoperability is important. As already stated, the concept of universalisation was utilised 12 years ago in the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines. This refers to the fact that in the event of the creation of an international instrument seeking to abolish the production, stockpiling and so forth of landmines, not all nations in the international community will join from day one and many will join later. A refusal by those nations that are signatories to engage and interact with any nations which did sign meant that matters became difficult and the position became morally reprehensible. That is the meaning of the stigma that attached to the use of landmines after a significant achievement had been made. Those countries that continue to use cluster munitions should be rightly regarded as pariahs among states with anything like a concept of moral politics.

Should the Bill proceed to Committee Stage — I hope this will prove to be the case — I will table amendments that reflect the principles contained in the motion which Senator Norris and I tabled at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. These principles relate to a total prohibition on cluster munitions, national law, research, publication awareness and the role taken by Ireland on advancing jurisprudence in this area and in those of mine-risk education, the treatment of casualties etc. I compliment Deputy Timmins on suggesting the introduction of an absolute prohibition on investment in any company involved in cluster munitions production. Included under this prohibition should be the activities of companies involved in advanced technological or scientific research that does not have a direct connection to such production.

There is only one way to be moral in the context of legislation relating to the control of exports. I refer here to the point at which we become able to discover and define end use. If one can identify this point, one will then know whose hands are dirty or have blood on them because they were involved at either an intellectual and technological or a practical level.

Cluster munitions do not discriminate among their victims. There are no cluster bombs that can guarantee anybody's safety. They are an abomination and an obscenity and are like a scar on the face of humanity. That is the reason the prohibition should be universal and should allow no escape by way of subtlety of definition. The Government, even if it does not want to accept the Bill, should at this stage consider using the statutory instrument procedure to enter the conference in a strong position and provide a lead. If they were willing to accept Deputy Timmins's Bill I would be glad to work with everybody on Committee Stage to make sure the Bill represents model legislation rather than waiting, as the amendment suggests, until it is all over and then, nine months later, realising that we have the heads of a Bill. No idea of completeness or anything similar would justify having missed the opportunity of succeeding on such an important issue about which many members of the public are concerned.

I pay tribute to the NGOs who have worked on this, such as Pax Christi, and particularly Mr. D'Costa.

See this speech in context