John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)

My first point concerns the announcement by the National Pensions Reserve Fund about withdrawing €27 million investments from a number of companies that manufacture cluster munitions. I note that the fund uses the Norwegian Government's list to identify those particular companies. Norway is not a member of the European Union. I suggest that the Government attempt to make the step our National Pensions Reserve Fund has taken European policy. The Minister should raise the matter at the Council of Foreign Ministers and put it to our European partners that this is an issue that should be considered. My sense is that some of our EU partners will accept the concept but that others may not embrace it wholeheartedly. I guess that some of those countries' pension funds, particularly the larger nations, will have invested far more than €27 million in the companies manufacturing cluster munitions. How many of those member states will be members of NATO? Even so, some of those NATO members have already initiated bans. If one is to take a lead on this issue, one needs to address it where it counts, that is, where the money is.

Some years ago when I was a US congressional staffer, I was lobbied about the banning of personal landmines. I agreed with the lobbyist who was bringing it to the congressman's attention. I wrote a recommendation asking the congressman to sign my petition but he rejected it. He made it clear there were many manufacturers of armaments in his congressional district and they contributed a great deal of money to the local economy.

With regard to the US position, its reluctance regarding the banning of cluster munitions seems to be based on an idea that they can be an effective military weapon when deployed properly. The fact remains that regardless of proper deployment, whatever that means, they have a guaranteed disastrous effect on civilian populations. Even though the US did place a partial moratorium in December 2007 on the sale of cluster munitions, it is time it put a permanent ban on the sale, stockpiling and transfer of these weaponry.

A briefing paper I received recently on EU member states and their positions states:

Most EU member states have shown interest in the process while also expressing a desire for complementarity with the Convention on certain conventional weapons. Only Poland and Romania have refused to engage, although Finland also has difficulties and is unlikely to stay the course. Belgium, Austria, UK, Hungary and the Netherlands are among those states which have adopted varying degrees of national moratorium on the use of cluster munitions. Germany has been most active in trying to develop a definition and lead-in period for prohibition. In discussions recently, a number of European countries, including France, Germany, Denmark and the UK identified serious concerns about the provisions on definitions and scope.

It is clear from this there are members of the European Union who, for varying reasons, have different opinions on the different conventions. At the very least we should pose the issue raised by our pensions reserve fund at EU level. That is something that either the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Kitt, or the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, should do.

On the Government's unwillingness to accept the Fine Gael Private Members' Bill, it is disappointing the Government has no intention of judging this on its merits. Deputy Timmins is correct in saying there is no reason changes or additions to the Bill cannot be made on Committee Stage. In my opinion, the Government could have accepted the Bill. We would not have had any difficulty in deferring Committee Stage.

I wish to respond to a comment made last night accusing Fine Gael of potentially dividing the House by pressing the Second Reading of this Private Members' Bill. The Government's less than gracious and slightly patronising attitude towards the Bill is responsible for any potential division on this issue. There is no need for a vote on this and everybody knows that but it is entirely the Government's decision.

When looking at the issue I was struck by one statistic. A report was carried out which indicated that 98% of casualties from cluster munitions were civilians. That tells its own story. I was in Cambodia last year and I have an image of farmers working in the fields there. At the same time one can see the sign with the skull and crossbones beside them indicating a minefield. At the time the ground was hard but the position changes drastically when the rainy season comes because the ground is softer and the weight of a man, woman or child can set those mines off. That is the situation in which they find themselves but they have no choice. Effectively, by working they risk everything. When researching this issue, I was struck at the enormous amounts of bomblets and ordnance that have been deployed in places such as Iraq, Kosovo and the Lebanon and the lasting danger to the civilian populations in those countries. For example in Laos there were 9 million unexploded submunitions, many of which will continue to cause casualties. I have read the Government's amendment and I have no great difficulty with it but I do not think it is necessary. By tabling this amendment the Government has unnecessarily ruled out the prospect of the Irish Parliament supporting this issue collectively and that is unfortunate.

See this speech in context