Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, to delete lines 30 to 33.

The amendment relates to the definition of anti-handling devices. It is a matter we discussed on Committee Stage and on which there remains a difference. For the sake of economy and brevity I hope to make the fundamental case. It is that something that has the consequence of being an anti-personnnel device — in the short term, medium term and long term — should be considered entirely from the point of view of the victim. I cannot accept that there is a category of anti-personnel device that is somehow or another mitigated in terms of its consequences or impact.

We discussed the matter on Committee Stage and I do not intend to delay the House with arguments that have been made previously. The matters that are covered by amendments Nos. 2, 5 and 9 are the outcome of a consensus that was established in a declaration, which I welcome as a considerable advance. The argument is whether one should confine oneself to that or not. The argument was made therefore as to whether if one goes beyond the consensus one is somehow or another guilty of an absence of goodwill. Two countries that will soon be signatories along with us to the convention are Belgium and Austria. As I understand it, they have legislation that goes beyond the frame of the convention. Their legislation could be construed as a complete ban on all munitions without the distinction of them being anti-handling or otherwise. I am interested in something quite simple. I see in the suggestion of the accommodation on anti-handling devices that technology has somehow or another mitigated the moral argument.

Amendment No. 5 concerns the deletion of lines 42 to 46 relating to the definition of an anti-personnel mine. I am interested to hear the Minister's reply to amendment No. 9. Again, it was an issue that was raised on Committee Stage. The amendment calls for the repeal of section 30(1)(e) of the Defence Act 1954, which gives the power to the Minister for Defence to "lay mines". It was my belief that it would be easier to repeal that section or make a request to repeal that aspect of the Act.

The substantive issue is the definition of a cluster munition. On page 4 of the amended legislation a definition is provided for a cluster munition as follows:

"Cluster munition" means a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions, but does not include the following:

I see that list as a mitigation of a total ban, which is the main purpose with which I am dealing. For example, section 2(1)(c) states: "a munition that, in order to avoid indiscriminate area effects and the risks posed by unexploded submunitions, has all of the following characteristics:". A general point arises as to whether in fact the available scientific and technical knowledge is able to specify a discrimination or whether one can put a fence around indiscriminate consequences. Section 2(1)(c)(i) states, "each munition contains fewer than 10 explosive submunitions;". In order to save time later, if in fact one says the argument is that one uses nine cluster munitions and the first is successful in terms of achieving its target, what then happens to the other eight?

I have considered the matter since Committee Stage in terms of what the NGO sector started out with and what it ended up with. I accept the Minister's good faith on what he is seeking to achieve but I am anxious to go further in terms of having our legislation in such a way that it provides the maximum protection. Perhaps the most horrific consequences are ones that occur long after the immediate conflict has taken place. We must consider whether the technical definition provided offers the protection we want in the immediate sense or consequent to conflicts. I am in favour of the more simple total prohibition on all anti-personnel missiles on the basis that it is stronger. I am not convinced by the suggestion that one can have such a sophisticated missile that it knows its intention is aimed at a tank and, given the possible success of one missile out of nine that the remainder should not therefore damage civilians. That is the crux of what remains in terms of Report Stage amendments.

See this speech in context