I move:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the Explosives (Land Mines) Order, 1996.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Lynch.
Explosives (Land Mines) Order, 1996: Motion.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am pleased to move the motion asking the Dáil to note the Explosives (Land Mines) Order 1996. This order places Ireland in the forefront of countries which have translated their position on land mines into domestic law. Our leading role in advocating a total ban on anti-personnel land mines is already well established. Ireland does not license the export of land mines. The new legal instrument copperfastens our national policy of not allowing the manufacture, sale, or importation of land mines. It significantly enhances our international advocacy of a total ban on anti-personnel land mines.
The manufacture, sale, etc., of land mines is now, because of this order, an offence subject to sanctions. This criminality attaches not just to the manufacture, etc., of anti-personnel land mines but to all land mines. This is of particular significance.
Land mines have been described as multi functional devices filled with explosives with the intention of destroying vehicles and people. The horrific effects of these devices and the devastating humanitarian consequences — especially of anti-personnel land mines — have been well documented. The Secretary General of the United Nations has expressed the view that the impact of these weapons is so appalling that a total ban on all anti-personnel land mines is the only solution.
The clear, unequivocal and, indeed leading position which Ireland has taken on land mines is internationally well documented. The Convention of the Prohibition or Restriction on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects was opened for signature on 10 April 1981. With 33 other states, Ireland signed the convention, subject to ratification, on that date. Ireland duly lodged its instrument of ratification of the convention on 13 March 1995 and participated as a full state party in the recent Review Conference of the Inhumane Weapons Convention, as it is commonly called. The Tánaiste reported to the House on 8 May on the outcome of the review conference which adopted an Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices.
The aim of the Inhumane Weapons Convention and its annexed Protocols is to give effect to two basic principles. These are first, that certain conventional weapons should neither inflict excessive injury nor cause unnecessary suffering, and second, that they should be directed only at military forces and not used indiscriminately to harm the civilian population.
The review conference process afforded Ireland ample opportunity to articulate clearly our stance on the use of land mines. At the start of that process, as I advised the House previously, Ireland was one of only five countries which called for a total ban on anti-personnel land mines. When I attended the conference representing this country I felt relatively isolated. Although the outcome of the conference was disappointing, because of our call for a total ban, the process itself undoubtedly gave a strong impetus to the international campaign to ban land mines, 40 countries are now identified as supporting a total ban and, in many cases, as having taken steps at national level to advance a global ban.
Significantly, President Clinton has announced that the US will seek a global ban on all land mines by 2001. I am sorry that the impetus for the US review, especially the strong comments made by the powerful Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the death of three UK soldiers in a horrifying land mine explosion in Bosnia where there are more than one million mines.
Last week a significant event for humankind occurred when Pol Pot was reported to have died. Pol Pot died, but his killing fields in Cambodia live on as a memorial and a continuing form of warfare on the innocent civilian population of that country.
The initiative which Canada has taken to convene a meeting of supporters——
On a point of order, Pol Pot issued a statement denying that he died.
I am advising on what was reported.
Are reports of his death greatly exaggerated?
If and when he dies, does the Minister of State intend to attend the funeral?
No.
Deputy O'Malley will have the opportunity to elaborate on this matter later.
For Deputy O'Malley to make light of such a figure of horror in the history of recent times ill becomes him. The man is personally responsible for several million deaths.
The Minister of State should not take herself so seriously.
The issue of land mines is serious, and not a matter for joking as the Deputies appear to believe. The initiative which Canada has taken to convene a meeting of supporters of a total ban in Ottawa in September and October will provide a welcome new focus for action to develop further the international support without which a comprehensive, global prohibition on anti-personnel land mines will not come about.
In the interests of consistency with the strong international stance taken by Ireland on this issue, the Department of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with other Departments, examined the legislative position in Ireland with respect to land mines. It was established that under the Explosives Act, 1875, the Minister for Justice regulates activities relating to civilian explosives; that, under the Explosives Act, the production, stockpiling and importation of land mines were already subject to licence; that there was no current licence to manufacture land mines; that no such licence had ever been sought; and, indeed, that if any such application were received, the Minister for Justice would refuse it. Significantly, it was noted that the Minister for Justice also had power under section 43 of the Act to make regulations prohibiting the manufacture, keeping, importation, conveyance and sale of substances which are particularly dangerous. I should point out at this stage that the Defence Forces are exempt from the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1875. I will return later to the issue of Ireland's defence policy in practice, especially with regard to anti-personnel land mines.
Under the Control of Exports Act, 1983, the Minister for Tourism and Trade has made the export of land mines subject to licence. The Department of Tourism and Trade, as the export licensing authority, upon advice, adheres to a policy of refusing any licence to export land mines.
Notwithstanding the comprehensive legislative framework that is already in place and the fact that, in effect, neither the Minister for Justice nor the Minister for Trade and Tourism will issue licences for the import or export of land mines, the Government decided on 8 May 1996 that an order should be made by the Minister for Justice under section 43 of the Explosives Act, 1875, banning the manufacture, keeping, importation and sale of land mines. The order was signed by the Taoiseach on 12 June 1996 and was operative with effect from 13 June 1996. The fact that the order was enacted within weeks of the Government decision in the matter highlights the Government's concern on the issue.
The order provides that no person shall manufacture, keep, import into the State, convey or sell any land mines. It defines a land mine as any munitions designed to be placed under or near the ground or other surface area and designed to be detonated or exploded by the presence or proximity of, or contact with, a person or vehicle. The implementation of this order means that it is now an offence to manufacture or in any way deal with land mines in the State.
While the focus of the international debate has centred on the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land mines, the Government decided that the order should extend to all mines. I should like to explain why.
The House will be aware that, in international fora, Ireland follows a policy of seeking to promote acceptance of the vital importance of exercising responsibility and restraint in the matter of arms transfers, both exports and imports. This is a long-term endeavour. As Minister with responsibility for development co-operation, I am acutely aware of the economic and social cost, as well as the destabilising effects, of the excessive accumulation of arms in developing countries. This applies in particular to small arms and, most devastatingly of all to land mines. The use of anti-vehicle and anti-tank mines has a price in humanitarian terms too, admittedly a less horrendous one than that which too often attaches to the use of anti-personnel land mines. Until they are cleared, anti-tank mines impede the delivery of badly needed aid for reconstruction in post-conflict situations. That fact alone can delay the return of cultivation of agricultural land and hinder the resettlement of refugees.
Anti-tank and anti-vehicle mines do perhaps serve legitimate military purposes but I am sure the House will agree it does not follow that the commercialisation of these items, their production, import and sale should be permitted in Ireland. The White Paper on Foreign Policy stated that Ireland is not a producer of armaments and will not become one. In considering this specific order, therefore, the Government took into account both its wider policy on armaments and the humanitarian considerations which relate also to anti-tank mines. It concluded that commercialisation of land mines of any kind should not be permitted in Ireland. This order reflects that position. Regrettably, the recent Review Conference agreed only minimal new restrictions on the use of anti-tank mines. There was no agreement even that these munitions would have to be detectable.
As I have indicated earlier, the leading position which Ireland has taken on land mines in international fora is well established. Despite this, the question was being posed with increasing insistence as to why our ban position was not reflected in law in light of other countries advocating a total ban. I want to thank Fianna Fáil who earlier raised the matter in a specific Bill. The making of this order allows the ban to be extended to all mines, including the anti-tank mine, whereas the Fianna Fáil Bill was more limited in its effect and did not introduce the question of penalities. It was an advocacy Bill rather a Bill for implementation.
The making of the Explosives (Land Mines) Order, 1996 is the answer to this challenge. It will, in addition, strengthen the momentum of the international campaign against anti-personnel land mines and heighten Ireland's profile in the area.
The Defence Forces are excluded from the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1875. Therefore, the terms of this order do not apply to them. The review of the use of anti-personnel land mines by the Defence Forces which was announced by the Tánaiste is almost complete. This is with a view to renouncing the operational use of anti-personnel land mines by the Defence Forces.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to bring this motion before the House in order to put into a legislative structure our very strong and leading position on land mines.
I note from the Minister's speech that she has much to say on this subject and has a huge commitment to it. I appreciate her allowing me to share her time.
I welcome this order. It is something that has been raised continually not just by Government parties but also by the Opposition in the recent past and for very good reason. The horror of land mines can leave nobody unaffected. This order gives domestic effect to our international opposition to the lethal trade in land mines. Land mines are the perfect killers, indiscriminate and effective weapons which cost a few pence to manufacture, less than £1 to plant and several hundred pounds to deactivate and remove.
The random planting of land mines in the late 20th century is the equivalent of the scorched earth policy used in the last century. For years after conflict has ended, agricultural workers and their families must play Russian roulette every time they attempt to sow or harvest a crop. In many areas of the world they do not have a choice; if they want to feed their families they must farm these minefields. An adult who steps on a land mine is likely to lose one or both legs. A child, who is obviously closer to the explosion, may either be killed outright or suffer horrendous internal injuries which will eventually kill him or her.
There are currently around 100 million land mines scattered in over 60 conflict zones and former conflict zones throughout the world, ranging from Cambodia, to Angola and Mozambique and now Bosnia, and every conflict leaves a new legacy of mines. Each week more than 500 people are killed or maimed by land mines. That is a reality we cannot afford to ignore. Demining is a painfully slow and extremely dangerous task. The United Nations has estimated that it would take 1,300 years to clear just one fifth of the estimated 10 million land mines planted in Afghanistan. I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the UK-based Mines Advisory Group whose volunteers help clear land mines at great risk to themselves.
Despite the horror of land mines the international community has been remarkably slow to ban this trade — for economic reasons more than anything else. The UN agreement reached in April in Geneva is a masterpiece of diplomatic fudging. A comprehensive and immediate global ban on the production, trade, supply and use of land mines or their component parts seems to be as far away as ever. In the absence of a world ban it is up to the 40 countries who have so far called for such a ban, including Ireland, to follow up their obvious commitment with effective legal sanctions. The Minister pointed out that at the outset of this campaign there were only five such countries and Ireland can justifiably be proud that it was one of the five. However glorious the task of war, no country can justify leaving a legacy of resolved or unresolved conflict which ensures that the rural areas of a country cannot function either economically or socially because of land mines.
A comment on armaments in general I once heard is that a bomb does not need to explode to inflict economic or social damage on a country, it just needs to be produced because the production of armaments takes from the economic viability of a country. That is true, especially in the case of land mines which are indiscriminate and are perfect killers. Documentaries on war torn countries show queues of multilated children seeking treatment at clinics but there is not help for them. Ireland is one of the few countries that is committed to aiding amputees as part of its foreign aid policy, yet it is not enough. Vast amounts of money are invested in the development of land mines and armaments. It is beyond comprehension how we can be so cruel and so inhumane to one another. War is an industry that makes or breaks people and on the whole people usually made fortunes rather than lost them.
I welcome this Order which will send a clear signal to the international community that Ireland is not prepared to tolerate this scourage either internationally or domestically. I understand from the Minister's replies in the past year or two that Ireland uses land mines only for training purposes. I understand that one needs to protect the armed forces especially when they are involved in peacekeeping duties. The Government has taken an extremely strong stand internationally on this issue which reflects the concern of the Irish people. The international stand is now reflected in our domestic regulations. I hope that by continuously making the argument against land mines — we have gone from being one of five to one of 40 — we will win the battle.
Just over one month ago I introduced a Fianna Fáil Bill seeking to prohibit the use of anti-personnel land mines in Ireland. Five weeks ago I stated that 110 million landmines contaminate some 70 countries today, that this weapon of mass destruction kills and maims 500 people every week, 26,000 per year. The killing and maiming still continues. One hundred and ten million land mines still contaminate 70 countries. The killing does not stop, it goes on and on.
In countries such as Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique and the former Yugoslavia, men, women and children continue to be blown up while fetching water or tending cattle. One harsh fact still continues to haunt us, if there was not another mine manufactured or planted, children not yet born would still be killed for years to come by mines already in the ground. The harsh statistic is that one mine exists for every 50 people on this earth or one for every 20 children and in some countries there is more than one land mine for every citizen. Cambodia has suffered more than most countries from the barbarous nature of this indiscriminate killing weapon. In that country with the population of 9.3 million, it is estimated — and it is probably an underestimate — that 10 million or more land mines are hidden in the ground. One person out of every 236 persons has at least one limb amputated. The country is home to between 35,000-40,000 mine victims and in excess of 300 mines accidents occur every month. In addition there are 20,000 internationally displaced people in Cambodia.
In the course of a distressing debate on the Fianna Fáil Prohibition of Anti-personnel Landmines Bill, 1996, the Government committed itself to bringing forward an order under which the manufacture of land mines would become a criminal offence. I welcome the Explosive (Land Mines) Order, 1996 which we are discussing. We have taken a step forward on the land mines issues, and I give the Government credit for that and we are beginning to demonstrate to the world that Ireland is very serious about this critical issue. However, the way forward is through primary legislation and this order is totally defective as has been highlighted by the amendment tabled by the former leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy O'Malley, who deplores the ineffectiveness of the order made under section 43 of the Explosive Act, 1875, where in the penalty specified for contravention of such an order is ten shillings or 50p for each pound of explosives. I will be supporting Deputy O'Malley and the Fianna Fáil Party will be supporting his amendment.
The best way forward on this issue would have been — I argued this a month ago — the primary legislation route. On a major issue such as this it is not right to suggest, as the Government did at the time, that the route of primary legislation would have unduly cluttered the Government's legislative programme, as some Deputies remarked during the debate. This so-called cluttering of a Government scheduling is a very small price to pay for a sound, concretely constructive measure to counteract the menace of mines. Land mines savagely ensure that the massacre of the innocent continues decades after peace agreements have been signed. They have been rightly described as buried terror.
One example alone can graphically portray the terror of mines buried beneath the ground. Peter Jesoimir, a soldier served on Bosnia's frontlines of war for more than three years. He survived the killing, the destruction and the devastation wrought during the conflict. After three years of fighting he was demobilised. In recent months he was working as part of a road crew on the outskirts of Sarajevo when an anti-personnel mine buried at the roadside blew up under his left foot, as he stumbled another mine shattered his right leg. Having survived tortuous years of conflict what does life hold for this former soldier? Today he lies in a Sarajevo orthopaedic clinic. He knows that from today until the day he dies he will be a drain on the nation he fought to preserve. Holding the stump of a leg he said, I know I have to live with this now, now I understand war. Apart from mines that have been planted in recent years, mines that planted during the Second World War are still killing people today and as technology becomes more and more sophisicated, the mines of today can detect body heat, footstep patterns and other signals which can cause them to explode.
In countless countries landmines have become one of the biggest obstacles to development.
Mines destroy the fabric and infrastructure of a society. Economic reconstruction, the return and rehabilitation of refugees, resettlement of internally displaced people and post conflict redevelopment of a society all become an impossible task. Denying access to land severely affects food production, which causes malnutrition or starvation. Mines maim or kill the workforces upon which rural economies depend to sustain themselves.
The impact on any of the countries blighted by mines is the same, whether there are 100 mines in a field or more than 1,000. Once there is a mine accident, the land becomes an object of terror for those who are so dependent on it. Cambodia, for example, has to import in excess of 200,000 tons of rice because it cannot farm land due to the presence of mines.
Are many mines still being laid? Figures for 1993 suggest that approximately 10,000 mines were removed at a cost of £70 million. However, during the same period between two million and five million mines were laid. Mines laid far exceed those removed. It appears to be a no gain, no win situation. To remove the mines already in the ground would cost approximately £33 billion and would take hundreds of years.
Mines were originally designed with the purposes of killing and maiming ablebodied soldiers. In reality the main victims are civilians — totally innocent people. Peter, the soldier whose case I described earlier, was a civilian when he bore the treacherous brunt of a mine's ferocity. Land mines are indiscriminate killers which kill not only during conflict but decades after the last shot has been fired. Technology has improved over the decades and some mines self-detonate after a period. However, mines which were laid years ago are not smart. They cannot distinguish a soldier's step from that of a civilian, or an adult from a child. These indiscriminate killers do not discriminate in favour of a particular victim. All ages, backgrounds and nationalities are vulnerable.
Until recent years land mines were considered an indispenable weapon for the military. However, opinions are changing in military circles. There is a growing understanding and opinion among military personnel that land mines should be banned. I previously spoke about the actions of General John Shalikashvili, the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who in March of this year ordered a review of the US military's policy with regard to the use of land mines. The man who led the Americans in the Gulf War, General Norman Schwarzkopf, has solidly expressed a wish to see land mines eliminated from warfare forever. This desire is based on his personal experience "having seen hundreds of my troops killed or maimed by them, as well as being keenly aware of the devastating effects of land mines on civilians".
Opinions with regard to the military use and effectiveness of land mines are certainly falling hard on the side of stating that they carry no usefulness. The International Committee of the Red Cross launched a paper a few years ago on mines entitled "Anti-Personnel Land Mines — Friend or Foe" which examined this issue. The Red Cross study revealed that out of the 26 conflicts it considered:
No case was found in which the use of anti-personnel mines played a major role in determining the outcome of the conflict. At best, these weapons had a marginal tactical value under certain specific but demanding conditions.
The chairman of the Irish Red Cross Society, Miss Una McGurk, has clearly stated:
Anti-personnel land mines are serial killers, and governments which support mine manufacture in their countries are exporting death. Governments who profit through taxes from this business are handling blood money.
There was some expectation at the UN review conference in Geneva a few months ago that progress would be made on the mines issue. However, progress was, as the Red Cross described it, wholly inadequate. The UN Secretary General, Dr. Boutrous-Ghali, voiced his disapproval after delegates from 55 countries, including Ireland, adopted new rules on the use of land mines but crucially ignored demands for an outright ban. The total ban sought by 30 governments, together with the UN and various NGOs, will be at least another five years away. A golden opportunity was missed in Geneva by the delegates, including Ireland, despite the Minister of State's protestations.
Undoubtedly, there has been a rapid, worldwide development of opinion in favour of an international ban on land mines. The number of countries calling for a total ban has increased from four in 1994 to approximately 40 countries at present. Belgium, a former land mine producing country, introduced a unilateral ban on land mines in 1995.
Non-governmental organisations in Ireland have vigorously promoted a unilateral ban on anti-personnel land mines and have urged the Irish Government to consider this seriously. The international campaign to ban land mines, representing over 50 organisations in 30 countries, has tirelessly promoted a unilateral ban. The European Parliment has called upon all members of the European Union to adopt national bans on anti-personnel mines and the Red Cross has urged all national Red Cross societies to work for national bans in their respective countries. A unilateral ban by Ireland would have a significant impact internationally in achieving the United Nations' stated objective of total elimination of this category of weapons, an objective which mirrors our position precisely. A ban will make permanent Ireland's refusal to be associated with this abhorrent weapon.
Internationally, a comprehensive ban can only be achieved if individual countries take courageous steps unilaterally. Ireland, through this order, inadequate as it is, will be a State where no person can manufacture, keep, import into the State, convey or sell any land mine. Being a non mine producing country with a unilateral ban would strengthen our ability to influence the world towards a total ban. It is not an empty gesture. Only last week in the Dáil we debated the UN chemical weapons convention. We agreed that Ireland should become a ratifing state of this UN convention. In the same way that nations can prohibit chemical weapons, I believe it is the bounden duty of Ireland to declare land mines illegal.
While this land mines order is before the House today, we still await a report of the comprehensive policy review by the Department of Defence. We believe the Army has presented its views to the Department of Defence, but policy proposals have yet to be presented to the Government. We eagerly await the publication of the policy review without delay. We already note with interest that the Army has in its submission to the Department of Defence sought an exemption from the order to allow the Army to import land mines for training purposes. As outlined in the recent Fianna Fáil Bill, we agree the Army should be in a position to use mines in its training exercises, as Irish soldiers will, on occasion, need the relevant expertise to deal effectively and efficiently with land mines when engaged in peacekeeping exercises overseas. Can the Minister of State inform us at which stage the comprehensive policy review is?
We have to take a moral stand and we must support the victims of land mines. We can use our respected world position and utilise our Presidency of the EU to do so. We in Fianna Fáil believe we must utilise this respected position to demonstrate the path which should be followed by world governments. Ireland must not let the opportunity afforded to us over the next six months to deal effectively with the land mines issues fall from our grasp.
This order is one step. It is totally inadequate for the reason listed in the amendment, which is that the penalty is ten shillings or 50 new pence for each pound of explosives. Further critical steps need to be taken. I believe the correct way forward is the introduction of primary legislation rather than reverting to an inadequate measure dating from 1875. However, I acknowledge and welcome the Bill as a step forward, although it is inadquate. Fianna Fáil will be supporting the amendment in the name of Deputy O'Malley.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dail Éireann" and substitute the following:——
"deplores the ineffectiveness of an Order made under section 43 of the Explosives Act, 1875, wherein the penalty specified for contravention of such an Order is 10 shillings or 50 new pence for each pound of explosives."
To the best of my knowledge the Minister of state when she spoke on the motion made no reference to this amendment, she totally ignored it. That in itself is some form of commentary.
The first thing that should be said about the motion is that it is entirely unnecessary. The House does not have to approve the order which will be valid without its approval. The House does not have to debate it. Presumably the motion has been brought forward only for publicity purposes or for the purpose of milking whatever can be milked from it by the Government. If Dáil Éireann chooses not to take note of the Explosives (Land Mines) Order, 1996, it will still stand. It is made by the successors to Her Majesty in Council which are defined in a long series of adaptations. She can operate independent of Parliament.
It seems curious that the motion has been brought forward today even though it is necessary. On the Order of Business it was decided that the debate on three items of business that are necessary should be guillotined. Presumably the motion has been brought forward for publicity reasons. One of the excuses given in the debate on 8 May for not bringing forward primary legislation to deal with the problem of land mines was, as Deputy Burke said, that it would clutter up the Government's legislative programme, but what is this motion doing? This fascinates me and is an indication that the optics are sometimes more important in this game than the realities.
One of the effects of the order is to prohibit the manufacture, keeping, importation, conveyance or sale of land mines. It does not, however, prohibit their exportation which is probably our biggest concern. This can be done under the Control of Exports Act, 1983, but it has not been clear whether an order has been made under that Act, although it was suggested in the debate on 8 May that such an order would be made. The Minister of State glossed over this point without being specific. It appears that while it will be illegal to import land mines it is not illegal to export them. That is a joke.
As it is illegal to manufacture land mines, we could hardly export them.
We could acquire them other than by manufacture.
We would have to import them first.
There are many explosives here and a great many of them were not manufactured in Ireland. By all accounts many of these explosives are exported to Northern Ireland and Britain. That is regrettable.
The Explosives Act, 1875, has a curious history. It is entirely inappropriate to the question of land mines at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. It was passed in the British Parliament for the control and regulation of industrial explosives in mines and factories in Britain. It had nothing to do with military type explosives and is a far cry from the use to which it is now being put.
This House thought that Act inappropriate and unnecessary and repealed it in its entirety in the Dangerous Substances Act, 1972. For some curious reason the then and succeeding Ministers for Labour did not make an order bringing the Dangerous Substances Act into effect. The result is that by a fortuitous mischance the 1875 Act survives on the Statute Book, although it was the considered view of this House that it should be repealed.
This is described as the "perfect answer" to our problems in the Minister of State's script, but in delivering it she dropped the word "perfect". I do not think it is the answer. Having looked at the 1875 Act I have to conclude that undoubtedly primary legislation is required in this instance and that this order is of little value.
Under section 43 of the 1875 Act the making of explosives entails a penalty of ten shillings for every pound in weight of explosive material. I do not know a great deal about the technicalities of land mines but I understand they are mainly plastic, have a detonator and fuse and a small quantity of explosive material of great power which causes much damage.
How is the provision supposed to be enforced so far as land mines are concerned? Somebody will have to scrape out of each land mine the explosive material and weigh it and for each pound there will be a penalty of ten shillings. That is making a joke out of the law, is totally ineffective and rather silly. I cannot see the point in this. It is not a question of weighing land mines because 90 per cent or more of their weight is not accounted for by explosive substances but by other material. This does not seem to be the appropriate way of going about it. The penalties are derisive.
There is only one group of people on this island that I can think of which might use land mines, the people who would spring to all our minds, but I do not think they will be deterred, no more than any one abroad, by the penalties specified in the order. This matter should be thought about again and dealt with in the right way rather than under an Act which this House thought should be repealed and probably believed had been repealed. It is only by a fortuitous circumstance it is not and that we find ourselves in this curious situation. I notice that the Minister's script states: "The implementation of this order means that it is now a criminal offence to manufacture, sell, etc. landmines" but when delivering her speech she left out the word "criminal" and I can see why. The question arises as to whether it is actually a criminal offence under section 43 or a customs offence and perhaps that is the reason she left it out. In any event it is inappropriate to use that section which can be used if an explosive is of so dangerous a character that in the judgment of Her Majesty it is expedient for the public safety to make such order. If Her Majesty has come to that conclusion and makes an order in council that it is expedient for the public safety, she can only do that if it is for the public safety of the United Kingdom. That was subsequently adapted to Saorstát Éireann — now Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. It had no extra territorial effect.
We have not heard the Deputy condemn land mines.
I condemned them at great length the last day.
Forget about Queen Victoria.
I would love to. It just happens that, unfortunately, the Minister of State is relying very heavily on the judgment of Her Majesty as to what is particularly unsafe. It is a great pity we have to debate the matter such as this in this context. I did not bring forward the motion. The order was made under this antique legislation which this House thought it had repealed in 1972 and now finds apparently it did not. I did not choose the section or the Act.
Land mines, as I and several others pointed out at length on the Private Members' Bill on 8 May, is a matter of enormous concern which should be dealt with by this country in a realistic fashion and not in this optical illusion fashion before us which is of so little value. Given that the penalties, the offence and so on have been shown to be ludicrous the problem should be dealt with in a real and serious fashion by primary legislation. On 8 May I was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the Government in respect of that because I did not have an opportunity to look at the 1875 Act at that time. I have since had an opportunity to look at it and clearly it is inappropriate as it deals with the question of the regulation of explosives in mines and factories in 19th century Britian. It does not seem to be appropriate to this, primary legislation is appropriate and it should be brought forward. Deputy Burke's Bill which was debated here on 8 May certainly had some defects, as I said at the time, particularly that it did not create an offence. These matters could have been rectified on Committee Stage if it had been accepted but it was voted down by the Government. That was a pity and this motion has been introduced instead. The Dáil does not have to pass this order which became operative with effect from 13 June 1996 but introduced unnecessarily. It is good to have the opportunity to debate it but it is a pity that an order of this nature, under this Act that is so clearly ineffective, was brought forward. It should be repealed now. It does not have to be repealed by this House, it can be repealed by the Government and primary legislation should be introduced. It will not clutter up things. Primary legislation would receive a welcome from all sides, it would pass through the House in perhaps a matter of hours and would not cause any great delay. That is what should now be done, otherwise Ireland's response to this matter may well be portrayed as a joke when it should not, because the overwhelming majority of the Irish people would like this problem to be dealt with effectively.
It is right and proper that this motion should be bought before the House because it is an issue of major international concern in which this country is taking a lead. To say there is something facetious about this debate is nonsense. I welcome this motion and I am not making a party political point. The motion is comprehensive and it not only bans all anti-personnel landmines, their manufacture, export and so on from this country it also deals with anti-tank mines which, de facto, are anti-personnel mines because they all have anti-handling devices.
In this motion the Minister was wise to ensure the inclusion of all these devices, which often are not covered by the anti-inhumane weapons conventions, because the manufacturers of these weapons want to exclude certain types of weapons, i.e. anti-tank mines which are laid in a similiar manner to anti-personnel landmines. The excuse is that because they are anti-tank mines the major pressure of a tank is required to active them and thus cause the explosion. All these devices have anti-handling devices which make them de facto anti-personnel land mines. Tens of thousands of those mines are being manufactured, exported and disseminated throughout the world, as stated in our motion. Nobody on the Opposition benches has made that point or, alternatively, it appears they do not understand it. I join the condemnation of the manufacture of land mines and compliment the lead taken by the Government. There is another area in which we need the vigliant. We do not manufacture mines or explosives here but throughout the electronic industry there are many components, not intended for this horrible trade, that can be used in the manufacture of land mines and anti-tank mines. We need to be vigilant because the export of these sophisticated components can lead to that end. We are safe in relation to the explosives sides and the manufacture of any of these devices but items manufactured here could find their way into the makeup of these mines.
I did not get an opportunity to speak on the Private Members' Bill on 8 May as I was out of the country and I may be repeating some of what was said then.
About 110 million land mines have been laid throughout the world and scattered across 69 countries, usually in some of the poorest.
When I was an election observer in Angola and Mozambique we travelled across Mozambique in jeeps from one polling booth to another. We were explicitly told to stick to specific routes and that we should not step off the road in certain places because they were so unsafe. I am a country man and I noticed that thousands of acres of land had huge potential for use for food production. However, the land was abandoned and people were not allowed enter it because it was littered with land mines.
Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land throughout the developing world have been effectively taken out of production by the sowing of land mines. This limits the capacity of the countries to meet their greatest need, to produce food for their people. This side effect of laying land mines is not often mentioned. Everybody refers to their terrible effects in terms of killing approximately 500 people a week or 26,000 people a year in countries blighted by them, but thousands also starve as an indirect result of them. It is a pity this issue has not been addressed because it is appalling.
The Minister mentioned that the civil war in Angola has ostensibly stopped, but the laying of land mines continues in certain areas. No country has suffered more casualties per head of population than Angola during 27 years of an appalling civil war; there was no ceasefire during 17 of those years. A major weapon in that war and in the conflict in Mozambique — its sister country in that it is also a former Portuguese colony — was land mines. The sad point is that land mines kill relatively few soldiers. The vast majority of people killed are civilians, and the majority of those are children. Hundreds of thousands of children in African countries are either killed or maimed by land mines. Many have lost a limb or an eye. It is a pathetic sight.
Manufacturers of land mines in the developed world, and particularly EU member states such as Italy, have much for which they must account. Conventions on inhumane weapons face the major problem of bringing into line countries which admit they have difficulties controlling the manufacture and export of land mines. However, that is not a good excuse. Last week there was some sympathy for the Russian Federation because it had real difficulties implementing the chemical weapons convention. Somehow it could not control the manufacture of chemical weapons or it did not know exactly how many chemical weapons were stockpiled. The same point is made about the Peoples' Republic of China, another major offender in this area. A sympathetic argument put forward on its behalf is that it too has difficulties knowing how many weapons are stockpiled and in terms of their dissemination and export.
Ireland is a small country and its voice is small in these matters. However, it has taken a moral and practical stance by banning the manufacture of these weapons within its shores. At international level Ireland has supported a total ban on them. Only 39 countries — an increase from 23 last year — support a comprehensive and total ban on the manufacture, dissemination and export of land mines; Ireland is one of them. Unfortunately, however, the major exporters have not signed the convention.
I am delighted to support the order. I heard nonsense from the other side earlier. The Fianna Fáil Bill was meaningless because it did not mention penalties. Deputy Burke criticised the Government, but the Bill he put forward in the House last May was merely an exhortation. It was flawed and often nonsensical and his points do not stand up.
I welcome the Minister of State's comments. The White Paper briefly referred to land mines and I wondered if the Government had considered whether legislation was necesary or if an order would suffice. Members are clear in their views about land mines, but Deputy O'Malley outlined the effectiveness, or perhaps ineffectiveness, of an order and he has moved an amendment. Given his comments about the penalty of the shillings and 50 new pence for each pound of explosives, the order will be ineffective if that is the case. I hope the Minister of State will reply to the points raised in that regard. Members agree with her about land mines but the issue of how the matter is addressed, whether by legisation or an order, also arises.
The point is not whether we should opt for high technology or low cost land mines. I do not wish to give the impression that we could be in favour of certain types of land mines because, as Bishop Kirby if Trócaire pointed out, there is no such thing as a humane land mine. The bishop has travelled through many countries in Africa and visited Cambodia and Vietnam and has seen the horror caused by land mines. He supports the Government's decision to ratify the inhumane weapons convention and I hope the order before the House will contribute to a total cessation of the manufacture and export of land mines. I also hope Ireland can use its influence with its EU partners to encourage them to desist from this type of trade in the future.
Representatives of the group, International Alert, appeared before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and their points about the use of land mines in internal conflicts throughout the world were striking. They divided the conflicts into those where more than 1,000 people are killed every year and those where fewer are killed. They said there are more than 32 conflicts where more than 1,000 people are killed. In foreign affairs the role of conflict prevention is important and the group is involved in that area.
Trócaire also referred to the low cost involved in planting land mines and the high cost of detecting and destroying them. Bishop Kirby stated that there are as many land mines as citizens in Cambodia and many people are injured by the mines. It is difficult to imagine what it would be like if that were the case here. I welcome the Minister's statement and hope other countries adopt our policy. Belgium has changed its policy. We are in a good position to call for a change in policy on the use of land mines and we have made great progress in that regard.
The Fianna Fáil Bill was unfairly criticised and, in spite of what we heard this morning, many Government Members said it provided a welcome debate in the House. The absence of measures to deal with penalties could have been dealt with on Committee Stage, but we were not given an opportunity to do that. Deputy Burke, our spokesperson on foreign affairs policy, stated in our document, A Place in the World, that he would introduce such legislation and he fulfilled his promise. The Bill was criticised for not going far enough, but that could have been altered on Committee Stage. In our policy document Deputy Burke stated that the central objective of Irish foreign policy should be a worldwide ban on the manufacture, sale, export and stockpiling of all types of anti-personnel land mines within three years. Such a policy deserves the support of all Members.
Deputy Burke also quoted the estimated figures for the number of land mines in the world and said they are based mainly in developing countries, one of the main obstacles to their development. I support Deputy Burke's call for the introduction of legislation in this regard, this debate emphasises the need for such legislation.
We must continue to press for a worldwide ban on all land mines. NGO's such as Pax Christi, Trócaire and Handicap International, members of which attended a meeting of our Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, want land mines banned in internal conflicts and a system put in place to monitor, verify and review all conventions. I hope the Minister will consider their views and that a ban on the use of land mines will prevent people from being injued and killed.
I thank Deputies for their supportive comments on the Government's call for a worldwide ban on land mines. I was somewhat surprised at the rather sour and curmudgeonly tone of some of Deputy O'Malley's contribution. His comments reflect a different viewpoint on military matters generally from mine. This matter was last debated in the House after we had introduced a White Paper which unequivocally set out at some length Ireland's position in calling for a worldwide ban on the use of land mines.
The Fianna Fáil Bill followed but that simple instrument was found to be so flawed as to be almost beyond repair. It offered no measures to deal with penalties or offences. It was simply an exhortation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to appeal to other Ministers. Deputy O'Malley criticised the Bill on those grounds and, if I recall correctly, suggested that the 1875 Act was an appropriate device to use. As he was Minister for Justice, he will know the 1875 Act was not suppressed at the time of the passing of the 1972 Act because there was subversive activity here which, unfortunately, remains the position to this day.
We have a clear statement from the Government and the principal Opposition Party, Fianna Fáil, supporting a worldwide ban on the use of land mines. There was a rather ill-judged attempt to introduce legislation which was not adequate. Instead we examined the existing legislation and discovered that an order under the explosives Act comprehensively bans anything to do with land mines here. That is what the international campaign requires and it allows us to restate our position in the context of the international campaign. We started off as one of five countries and have been joined by more than 35 other countries in calling for a ban on land mines.
It makes sense to use Dáil time and other mechanisms to seek to ban all land mines in this effective and comprehensive manner and not, as the Fianna Fáil Bill suggested, to seek to ban the use of only anti-personnel land mines. This is a significant step forward in the argument for a ban on all land mines. Given that we do not manufacture land mines and do not intend to have an armaments or explosives industry here, we are not in the same position as countries such as Belgium who manufacture armaments and for whom issues such as this are matters of public practice.
If a major arms manufacturer theoretically offered to create a large number of jobs here manufacturing land mines, our State agencies and authorities would be in a position to say that under this order Ireland does not manufacture, store, transfer or engage in any activity relating to the use of land mines. That will be the net effect of this order. It is unlikely that anyone would seek to use this country as a base for manufacturing land mines, but if they did that would be our answer to them.
We take up the Presidency of the European Union at the end of this month. In the course of the last debate it was stated by Deputies on all sides of the House that it would be desirable to have the Irish position clearly stated before the commencement of our Presidency, and that is one of the reasons for arranging the debate this morning. During our Presidency we will have an opportunity at the Development Council to discuss the question of land mines, particularly in the context of development. I have asked that that question be tabled as one of the issues to be dealt with during our Presidency.
During our Presidency we will also undertake the first review of the Lomé agreement — it is in that area we can make the greatest impact. In discussing the Lomé agreement, that is, the relationship between the European Union and the countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific region, we should seek to establish a coherent plan in terms of development aid and the money spent on armaments. It is unacceptable that many millions of dollars continue to be spent in countries such as Angola while land mines continue to be planted. Donor countries cannot continue indefinitely to give substantial development funds to countries such as China, the Russian Federation and other armament manufacturing countries while those countries export weapons of death to the ten or 11 countries beset by land mine conflicts, where the most horrific killings and civilian injuries take place on a daily basis.
This debate is a very small step in the campaign against land mines. It is a clear national statement of the Irish position. Deputy O'Malley chose to make little of it, perhaps because he and his party fail to have a sustained or serious interest in land mines, but the question of land mines and armaments in the Third World is as important as the question of affording sufficient food to people in the Third World to provide for their sustenance and well-being. It is important and effective to have a clear statement of the Irish position at the start of our Presidency. This order will stand in the very unlikely event that someone would seek to use Ireland as a base for land mines. That likelihood is extremely remote but it has to be addressed.
It is important that we go forward to the various international fora, particularly the European Union, to say what our domestic position is and continue to press for international action, particularly by countries that manufacture and export armaments. We must have dialogue with those states and argue that in the interests of the people of the developing world there should be no further expenditure on land mines. That money should be diverted to eliminating land mines already planted so that we get rid of that weapon of war. Many weapons of war have been eliminated — there is no talk anymore of crossbows — because they were so injurious as to be no longer acceptable to mankind. If we enter that debate with out partners in the European Union and countries that export and use land mines, we will have made a solid achievement during our Presidency.
Deputy O'Malley argued previously that legislation is a waste of time and stated today that because the Act dealing with this matter is an old one, we should not use the instruments at our disposal. I am disappointed the Progressive Democrats Party takes such a narrow view of the fight for disarmament and the campaign against land mines. The views expressed by Deputy O'Malley are so soured by his experience that he is incapable of seeing the benefits of this campaign. As in the case of apartheid, the campaign against land mines is one that must be undertaken.
What good is ten shillings to the campaign?
It is most unlikely that a manufacturer will seek to manufacture land mines on Irish soil.
It was always most unlikely.
Yes, but we are setting out our international position that, even though the possibility is remote, we will have nothing to do with land mines on Irish soil. In the case of apartheid we were not affected, yet we made an order against the importation of goods from South Africa. That issue did not directly affect us as a country, but it affected a great part of mankind. Similarly in this case, because the principle is greater than the narrow question of domestic self-interest we have opted to make a statement on the principle.
We are cluttering Dáil time.
We have taken an adequate amount on Dáil time to debate the issue.
The matter could have been dealt with properly by way of primary legislation.
I thank the Deputy's party for the points it made on this issue. This is one of the great campaigns of the last decade of the 20th century.
I was glad to lead it in Ireland.
I was one of five Ministers attending the review conference and the only Minister from a European Union country who spoke clearly for a total ban on land mines. Deputy Kitt spoke about Bishop Kirby. I met Bishop Kirby shortly after my appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and was pleased to tell him — he had not been able to get a clear answer up to that time — that I was more than happy to bring Ireland to the forefront in the campaign against international land mines.
I thank all the NGOs who have campaigned on this issue. The campaign does not stop here. This order is a small punctuation mark which simply marks our position as a country, and whether we are able to persuade others to eliminate land mines will be a test of our diplomatic skills and skills of persuasion. I thank the Fianna Fáil Members who have been very active in supporting the campaign. I met the leader of the campaign in the European Parliament and the patron of the mine awareness group two weeks ago and it is impressive that the campaign is beginning to gain momentum internationally. I hope Ireland will be in a position during our Presidency to bring forward debate on this issue in a number of modest ways. We will not be able to end the scourge of land mines on our own, but we have a moral authority to add our voice to the international campaign and thereby help to achieve success in the future.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Browne, John
- (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Eamon.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies O'Donnell and Keogh.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question, "That the motion be agreed to", put and declared carried.