Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

The Minister has encouraged me to stray from the particular to the general on this matter. However, I will first refer to amendment No. 9. On the Minister's last point, when he is reviewing the Explosives Act 1875, at the base of our current legislation on landmines, he might consider the 1954 Act. One cannot have it both ways in regard to interpretation. We can leave this amendment aside as it is the least contentious.

On the other two amendments, the issue that arises is that the Minister has chosen to extend the grounds of his objection to my amendments to the general. In the case of the landmines legislation considered when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I were Cabinet members, the decision of the then Tánaiste was to establish a template of legislation and seek consensus within it. In this particular case the consensus falls short, to some extent, of the lead given in some of the Belgian and Austrian legislation. I do not accept the Minister's principle. My interpretation is actually the better one of trust between nations in their recognition of the consensus established at the heart of their own legislation. It involves a rather minimalist and pejorative view of diplomacy to suggest that, because one has an external frame or agreement, excellence is achieved by remaining strictly within it. It is equally evident from the history of diplomatic achievement that when one includes the agreement and transcends it, one is retaining forward movement for the defence of civilians.

The Minister has associated this group of three amendments with the question of interoperability. On Committee Stage I was very much interested in hearing the guarantee he was giving. His reply on having a different definition from that of other countries leads to a different consideration.

See this speech in context