Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, to delete lines 21 to 33.

It is not necessary to delay the House with this amendment because I made arguments on the definition in our discussion of the previous amendments. Amendment No. 3 which would have the effect of deleting section 2(1)(c) calls into question the provision which would exclude from the definition of "cluster munition" a munition that, in order to avoid indiscriminate area effects and the risks posed by unexploded submunitions, has a number of characteristics, which are listed. I have made my case on this issue.

I acknowledge that the House has accepted the argument that, as far as this Legislature is concerned, that which has been agreed is the substantive matter to be addressed in this legislation. Nevertheless, it behoves those who accept the inclusion of section 2(1)(c) to technically validate its provisions. For example, while the inclusion in the list of ammunition containing fewer than ten explosive submunitions is an achievement in so far as it is some limitation, it leaves open the question I put about whether technology can answer the question as to the discriminate or indiscriminate nature of the remaining nine explosive devices in the event that the first submunition explodes successfully. The issue of weight, on which neither me nor the Minister claims to be an expert, also arises.

I wish to dispose of the view that I hold an idle, idealist position. We have had that argument. If the text is retained, a straightforward argument could be made that the provisions of the Bill are what it was pragmatically possible to achieve. While I can accept this, it does not refute the argument that it would have been better to have a complete ban without the exceptions listed in section 2(1)(c). It is, if one likes, a moral and epistemological question as to how one defines an exception. An exception does not defeat the principle.

See this speech in context