David Norris (Independent)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, subsection (1), to delete lines 21 to 33.

We are getting into the real meat of the Bill, namely, the definition of cluster munitions. The House will be told that there can be no variations on the treaty and so on. As I stated, the Bill is welcome, but it bans only some cluster munitions. I do not accept that anything under ten explosive submunitions is not a "cluster". Using this definition, the Bill exempts such devices. Section 2(1)(c) states that a cluster munition does not include:

A munition that, in order to avoid indiscriminate area effects and the risks posed by unexploded submunitions, has all of the following characteristics:

(i) each munition contains fewer than 10 explosive submunitions;

(ii) each explosive submunition weighs more than 4 kilograms;

(iii) each explosive submunition is designed to detect and engage a single target object;

(iv) each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-destruction mechanism;

(v) each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-deactivating feature;

Munitions of this nature do not avoid indiscriminate area effects, they merely reduce them. I am aware that some of these bombs contain an extremely high number of particle bomblets and that the area they can cover can be extremely wide. I forget the exact size of that area that can be affected by an exploding cluster munition but it may be equivalent to two or more football fields or may even be as large as one square mile. The area affected will be limited by the provision to which I refer. However, the dangers involved will not be removed completely.

The idea that fewer than ten explosives do not constitute a cluster is incorrect. Let us separate the words "cluster" and "munition". What does the term "cluster" mean? It means a group of items, usually related, gathered closely together. One example would be a bunch of bananas. It is frequently the case that there are fewer than ten bananas in a bunch. However, they would still constitute a cluster. One could also have a cluster of roses which might contain four, five or six but certainly, even on a floribunda, fewer than ten stems. In the context of language, this is still a cluster. I welcome the fact that the size of a cluster is being reduced. However, we are not avoiding some of the issues relating to something being identified as a cluster.

With regard to subparagraph (ii), 4 kilograms represents a hell of an amount of material. Anyone like me who does a modest amount of cooking will inform the Minister of State of that. A 4-kilogram explosive can do a huge amount of damage. If one were faced with nine such explosives, one would be in trouble. We are not talking about flour, pepper and salt, we are discussing explosives that have a fairly high-yield potential.

Section 2(1) also refers to each explosive submunition being designed to detect and engage a single target object. Such submunitions may be designed in this way but that does not mean they will be successful in seeking out single targets. We know that to be the case. We listened to those morons, Bush and Rumsfeld, referring to smart bombs during the initial assault on Iraq. Certain television pictures appeared to show that these devices were successful in seeking out their targets. In reality, however, they landed and exploded all over the place. Those who make these munitions have not designed one which can avoid causing damage to humans.

It is stated in the Bill that each explosive submunition will be equipped with an electronic self-deactivating feature. That is fine but, despite previous assurances to the contrary, we know that such features do not actually work.

This section of the Bill appears to be defective. I know the Minister of State will agree with me in respect of this matter and will state that he would love to oblige me but cannot do so. Despite all the work invested in the conference at Croke Park and this legislation, we are discussing what amounts to only a partial ban on cluster munitions. In addition, the definition is incorrect, defies language and represents a scientific position which is unlikely to be attained.

These munitions remain bloody dangerous, nasty things. Children will continue to pick them up, which is one of the really evil aspects relating to them. Many of the submunitions contained in so-called cluster munitions can appear similar to mini-Coke cans or sweet tins. The specific intention behind them is to create terror. Thank God those in the United States appear to be returning to their senses. However, I laugh when I hear the phrase "war on terror", particularly when one considers that the Americans were manufacturing and dropping weapons of this nature, which have no proven military application.

If one is concerned with that which is principally military in its application, then there is no place for these munitions, even at this level. What we are actually saying is that anti-personnel mines are really nasty but that landmines are not so nasty. In my opinion, the latter are a great deal more nasty. We are also stating that we oppose cluster bombs but that we will allow the use of small devices. I am against the whole damn lot of them.