David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, to the House and welcome the introduction of this timely Bill. While it is not perfect, it is good legislation. I propose to put some of my reservations about the Bill on the record, but to begin I congratulate those civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs who worked so hard to achieve what they thought was the best achievable. I witnessed their hard work at close range through the various meetings that took place here of the Cluster Munitions Coalition, the various receptions, conferences and so on. They may be right that they got the best achievable, but I believe in a council of excellence and in raising the bar all the time. This approach worked with the previous landmines legislation, where we were lobbied by the Clinton administration to permit loopholes in the legislation. However, we stood out against that. It would have been preferable if we could have done the same with this legislation. Therefore, I have reservations and will put down some amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage.

It is a remarkable achievement to get this far. These are filthy weapons and they are not something that is far from us. It was not just in Grimsby in the closing days of the war that these weapons were used, they were a product of the Nazi war machine, but, extraordinarily, they were used recently by NATO and approximately 250,000 were dropped on Kosovo. I regard that as an unacceptable use, because these weapons have no precise military application. They are a weapon of terror and nothing else. They have never once achieved a specific military objective. They are for use against the civilian population to create terror, to maim and injure civilians, particularly children and women working in the fields, and to render agricultural land unusable. They are both a terror and an economic weapon. I agree with the Minister they are weapons of barbarism and brutality and we will be well shot of them. We have reason to be proud that Dublin will enter history as having been the focus of the intense diplomatic effort that has led to the treaty that will be signed in Oslo. I am happy this Bill will be facilitated in order to allow Ireland to sign the international convention.

I have raised this issue on a number of previous occasions and am glad to say we managed to pass, unanimously, a motion on cluster munitions that was discussed here, having been given the special facility of Government time, on 6 March this year. Previously, I and Deputy Michael D. Higgins, who is extremely active in this area, put through a similar motion, that was also unanimously adopted, in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dermot Ahern, spoke in this House with great passion on this issue, because he had come across victims of this kind of atrocity, as did I in the Middle East. I also remember going, as many of Dublin's citizens did, to a remarkable exhibition of photographs which told the horrible, human story of what happens to people who innocently pick up these kinds of munitions.

I compliment Pax Christi Ireland, in particular, Tony D'Costa, on the work it has done. I know the Minister does not agree with this because I saw his article in the Irish Examiner today. It is a pity he selected Mr. D'Costa by name to reprimand. He said:

I am very disappointed at efforts to diminish this major achievement for Irish foreign policy. Tony D'Costa is out of step with the vast majority of people actively campaigning on this issue. The Cluster Munition Coalition, the umbrella body for more than 250 NGOs, views the convention as the most significant treaty of its kind since the ban on anti-personnel landmines in 1997.

The Minister is wrong in one sense. Of course the coalition welcomed it. However, I was involved in the campaign and in all the discussions and I can tell the House, incontrovertibly, that the coalition was disappointed. It wanted exactly what Tony D'Costa wanted and its members said that to me. I was at every meeting and the members of the coalition said again and again, "we want these things banned." They were against the definition that exempts landmines under a capacity of ten droplets, ten smaller munitions. At one of the meetings I asked why we were including the interoperability clause. I know the diplomatic reason for it and can understand and sympathise with it. I do not criticise the civil servants in our diplomatic corps who took that line. However, we should have taken a principled and moral stance on this.

In the recent debate in the Dáil, my friend and colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, made the same point. That reassures me because if there is one person in the Oireachtas who knows his way around international treaties and conventions and the way these matters are handled diplomatically, it is he. He said:

In 2006 and 2007, Belgium and Austria had followed such a path in the preparation of domestic legislation. [In other words, they went for the stars and upped the ante beyond what was in the treaty.] This is a rather long way of stating a point of view that I hold, which is that one should always use one's domestic legislation, given the activist achievement Ireland can point to, to go beyond the minimum required in the convention. In that way, one is continually raising the bar.

I used the phrase "upping the ante" and he used the phrase "raising the bar". We did this before on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Therefore, it is not against the ethos of the Department to take such a view and approach the matter in that way.

The exemption clause is one of the clauses to which I object, to which Tony D'Costa objected and to which the people in the Cluster Munition Coalition objected, although, of course, they accept the goodwill of the Department and the fact that it did what it saw as the best achievable in the circumstances. Section 2(1)(c) of the Bill exempts munitions with the following characteristics, each munition contains fewer than ten explosive submunitions; each explosive sub-munition weighs more than 4 kg — they weigh between four and 20 kg, and they are outlawed when they reach 20 kg; each explosive sub-munition is designed to detect and engage a single target object; each explosive sub-munition is equipped with an electronic self-destruction mechanism; and each explosive sub-munition is equipped with an electronic self-deactivating feature.

It is nonsense that the Bill accepts these munitions as long as they are below a certain standard. They are totally unacceptable. We know, for example, that they cannot detect and engage with a single object with any certainty. If one fires one that contains nine and one of those nine hits the target, what happens to the other eight? Where do they go? We know the self-destruct mechanism does not work most of the time as we have had plenty of experience of that and of the manner in which they are cynically used. Take, for example, the last days of the war in Lebanon, when Israel dropped 4 million cluster bombs, despite the fact that the conflict was over. The diplomatic moves had been made and Israel knew there would be no fighting, yet it dropped 4 million cluster bombs to terrorise the civilian population.

Most of the time the electronic self-destruct mechanism does not work. If it does, what happens if it lands in a civilian area and blows up? We know the most evil thing about these is that it is often children who pick them up. Each explosive sub-munition is equipped with an electronic self-deactivating feature. It is for these reasons I am against these provisions.

It is a pity we could not have gone further than the treaty in our domestic legislation. I do not believe this would have legally inhibited us from signing something that was slightly weaker. It was a pity for that reason and I will table some amendments. Just as in the case of the landmines convention, where Ireland resisted such loopholes, we have given in and have allowed such loopholes to exist.

I refer to the Minister of State's speech. He sets out, quite rightly, the basic international humanitarian law that one must distinguish between civilians and armed combatants and so on. However, he goes on to refer to a scenario "where a weapon is incapable of distinguishing between civilian and combatant". Can the Minister of State provide an instance of a weapon that is capable of so doing? I never have come across one as they do not exist and no weapon is capable of so distinguishing. Moreover, the Minister of State should not mention smart bombs. One heard all about them during the blitz on Baghdad and it all turned out to be a tissue of lies. There is no such instrument that can distinguish between a civilian and a military target.

Although the Minister mentioned a number of states, it is a pity he did not name and shame them. The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, may not be aware that Senator Leyden makes a habit of employing the war cry, "name and shame". Why not name and shame such states, even if they are our allies?

In a speech that was good in a number of respects and which provided Members with a wide-ranging historical background to the matter, the Minister spoke about the definition of a cluster munition under the convention and stated it is comprehensive. I have just given reasons I do not consider this to be the case because it exempts certain objects that clearly are cluster munitions. Nine components constitute a cluster and yet this legislation permits them. The Minister then spoke of the "retention or acquisition of a limited number of cluster munitions and explosive submunitions for training purposes". I seek further explanations in this regard. What are these training purposes and what is their point? If they are for the purpose of giving people access to techniques of mine clearance, that is fine. However, if they are to continue with military exercises, then it most definitely is not fine.

The Minister also noted:

[T]he convention includes comprehensive provisions on assistance by state parties to cluster munition victims in areas under their jurisdiction or control. They should adequately provide age and gender-sensitive assistance [and so on].

This is splendid and such assistance for victims was something for which Deputy Michael D. Higgins and I were fighting. However, those who manufacture the bombs should pay. I do not believe it is right to bomb the crap out of people and then expect them to pay, if Members will excuse the expression. I beg the Cathaoirleach's pardon as it just slipped out. Why should they? I am sure Senator Boyle will agree the polluter should pay. Is that not the principle? The countries that——