I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Cluster Munitions Bill 2008: Second Stage.
The Deputy has 40 minutes.
I wish to share time with Deputies Coveney, Ring, Perry and Deenihan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Cluster Munitions Bill 2008, which we published some weeks ago. We started work on it in the latter half of last year, motivated by international events and, admittedly, the work being done by the Government in the sector. We are conscious that a conference will take place in Croke Park in May and we believe it would strengthen our hand as one of the nations seeking to take a lead on this issue to have this legislation in place. The Minister will table an amendment to the Bill. While I agree with some aspects of the amendment, I disagree with others. When the Minister rises to speak at 7.40 p.m., I hope he will see it in his heart to accept the Bill as is.
I have reviewed previous attempts to introduce Private Members' legislation, namely, the landmines Bill, and noted the comments of some Members on the Government side of the House. I trust the Minister will not stand and call the Bill flawed or inappropriate, as occurs often. I recall the phrase "scribbled on the back of a cigarette box", but this Bill has not been scribbled on the back of a cigarette box. Rather, it is well considered and unique, the first of its kind. If the Government or our colleagues in the Labour Party want some aspects addressed, there is Committee Stage on which to do so. In recent years, that Stage has been flexible in respect of much legislation. I hope the Minister will accept the Bill.
Cluster munitions are possibly the most reprehensible weapon that can be used in conflict. Their main purpose is to inflict terror in the civilian population. They do not discriminate between soldier or civilian, mother or son, child or adult. The evidence of their work is clearly visible in several areas of the world, from Lebanon to Vietnam and Kosovo to Chad, as one witnesses the young child on crutches or the adult minus an arm. Long after the conflict is over, the local population can suffer from the horror of cluster munitions because the non-threatening design can arouse curiosity in the unsuspecting civilian. In the late 1970s, an unexploded mortar shell killed several children in the Glen of Imaal in County Wicklow. They played with the lethal weapon innocently, having found it in the range area.
Some cluster munitions are designed to explode long after initial contact. Even some of those that are designed to explode on impact can be faulty and explode at a later time, particularly on contact. Often, this contact is made by an innocent civilian or child. It is estimated that the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006 resulted in more than 1 million unexploded bomblets being deposited in the towns and hillsides of Lebanon. In Afghanistan, the humanitarian ration packs dropped from aircraft were difficult to distinguish from cluster bomblets, with both displaying a similar colour coding. To this day, several hundred people die in Vietnam each year from the remnants of war.
The first cluster bombs used were of German manufacture and were dropped during the Second World War. The design was elaborated upon by the Americans, Russians, Italians and others. Today, more than 30 countries produce cluster munitions and more than 20 countries use them. In the 1960s, the US used cluster bombs in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and the French used them in Chad. From 1994 to 1996, the Russians used them in Chechnya. From 1995 to 2000, the Sudanese Government used them internally against local rebel forces. As recently as 1999, the US, Britain and the Netherlands used them in Kosovo.
The footprint of a single cluster bomb can be as large as a football pitch. The fragments of exploding submunitions travel at high velocity. If even the smallest fragment impacts on an individual, it initiates wave pressures within the body that do horrific damage to soft tissue and organs. A single fragment can kill or leave one blind or without a limb. I served in Lebanon in the mid-1980s. Something that struck me when I arrived there was the number of young children with one leg, no legs, one arm or no arms. Most of those injuries were caused by bomblets whereas some were caused by a method to stun fish using grenades, which can be a dangerous occupation. To see the situation at first hand can leave an indelible impact on an individual.
After the Kosovo conflict in 1999, efforts were made to handle the mine problem in that region. According to the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Centre in Pristina, the total number of mines and unexploded ordnance cleared by March 2001 was more than 84,000.
Research has shown that the majority of victims are poor, uneducated males at work, comprising approximately 77% of the total confirmed casualties. Many of them are boys under the age of 18 years. In southern Lebanon, almost 90% of the land used for farming and grazing is contaminated with unexploded cluster submunitions. Some 98% of cluster munition casualties are civilians killed and injured while returning home in the aftermath of conflict or while going about their working days. Could we imagine being out for a picnic on a weekend in Ireland when, after our children run after a football they have kicked over a fence, we hear an explosion? This is what occurs in the countries in question.
While research in this area is difficult, it is evident that, for 400 million people living in affected countries, cluster munitions turn homes and communities into de facto mine fields. In Kosovo, 53% of casualties occurred in the two months after the end of the conflict. Most of the victims, those killed and maimed, were boys between five years and 15 years of age. Almost 200 people have been killed or maimed since the war in southern Lebanon ended in 2006. In Vietnam, 300 people are still being killed each year.
In 2000, the BBC reported that the bright yellow American cluster bombs, whether by accident or design, were visually appealing to children who found them. In May 1995, the Croatian capital, Zagreb, was deliberately targeted by Serb forces. One Serb general informed the press that, if the Croats launched an offensive, the Serbs would attack "weak points". He went on to state: "We know who the people in the parks are — civilians". They were targets for cluster bombs. During the Israel-Lebanon conflict in 2006, Hizbollah used cluster bombs when attacking Israel and the Israelis did likewise.
The civil war in Laos ended in 1975 officially. In the opening address at the Wellington Conference on Cluster Munitions in February of this year, Ms Hilde Johnson, deputy executive director of UNICEF, stated:
On January 17, nine children in southern Laos were searching for little crabs to eat. The children found a BLU 26 cluster bomb, which exploded. Three boys from nine to 14 years old died immediately, and a fourth 12 year old boy died on the way to the provincial hospital.
It is against this background that Fine Gael moves this Bill.
International efforts have commenced to ban these munitions. Under the Oslo process, which was launched in Norway in February 2007, approximately 46 countries committed to negotiate by the end of 2008 a ban on using, making, stocking or transferring cluster munitions that cause "unacceptable harm to civilians". Since then, many countries have taken unilateral steps to demonstrate their bona fides and give an added momentum to the process. The Bill seeks to improve our bona fides and to add momentum by putting Ireland in a position of strength next month.
In March 2007, Britain stated it would stop using two kinds of "dumb" cluster munitions that lack self-destruct devices. The United States is not a part of the Cluster Munitions Coalition. However, it has signalled some movement on the issue, albeit slowly. Both the United States House of Representatives and Senate passed the 2008 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill, which includes a provision limiting the sale and transfer of cluster munitions systems to those that have a failure rate of 1% or lower and mandating that any country importing US cluster munitions only may use them against clearly defined military targets where no civilians are present. Despite objections to the restrictions, President Bush signed it into law in December 2007, effectively ending the sale of cluster munitions for one year.
The purpose of this Bill is to prohibit trade in cluster munitions. This legislation emanates from the Wellington declaration on cluster munitions, which was itself informed by previous international conferences in Vienna, Lima and Oslo on the prohibition of cluster munitions. It also is informed by the draft cluster munitions convention agreed at the Wellington conference on January 21 2008.
In so far as trade in cluster munitions exists in Ireland today, this is effectively symbolic legislation. Ireland does not produce or use cluster munitions and has no stockpiles to destroy, which is an important issue for other signatories to the Wellington convention. In that vein, the purpose of this Bill in prohibiting the trade, transit or procurement of cluster munitions is that it will set an example and contribute to the international movement to outlaw such munitions.
The portion of the Bill that will have significance for Ireland's contribution to eliminating cluster munitions is the restriction on financing companies engaged in the trade or procurement of cluster munitions. In so doing, Ireland will be going further than the requirements of the draft convention as it may be agreed and will be the first country to take a maximal approach to removing cluster munitions from international affairs by stemming the flow of finance to the production of munitions and by taking a step on behalf of the Irish people to demand their money must be used to finance projects in a clear and transparent manner.
The National Pensions Reserve Fund invested approximately €27 million in companies trading in cluster bombs last year. The fund has a share of approximately 25% of the Irish pension industry assets. It is not an unreasonable assumption to suggest the portfolio investment strategies of private pension fund investment companies are similar to that of the National Pension Reserve Fund and that, therefore, on a pro rata basis, the total Irish investment in cluster munitions is slightly more than €100 million.
It is hoped that by placing a requirement on banks and pension funds to declare annually that they have not financed companies involved in trade of cluster munitions, the social and moral voice of the people will be heard in refusing to allow their money to be directed to such companies. This first instance forced disclosure regulatory framework is the best way for this to be achieved. Nevertheless, Fine Gael's Bill provides for serious punitive measure to be imposed were compliance under this provision not to be attained.
I will outline the provisions of the Cluster Munitions Bill 2008. Section 1 gives the Short Title of the Act as the Cluster Munitions Act 2008. Section 2 is the definitional section. Cluster munitions are defined as "containers comprising explosive sub-munitions over an area which are intended to disperse these sub-munitions over an area in order to detonate them before, on or after impact". They do not include "flare and smoke ammunitions or pyrotechnical chemicals". The definition has been adopted from Article 2 of the draft convention on cluster munitions, which has emerged as the standard international definition and is the definition used in those countries that have already imposed bans on cluster munitions.
One minute remains to the Deputy.
With the agreement of the House, I seek two or three additional minutes.
It is time allocated to Fine Gael. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The definition of trade in cluster munitions is deliberately wide in order to encompass all forms of activity that may be associated with the use, design, possession, procurement, transit or trade in cluster munitions. The definition states: "trade in cluster munitions means development, design, production, purchase, sale, supply, procurement, import, export, transit, use storage or possession of cluster munitions".
Section 3 is the key operative section of the Bill and sets out the prohibition on trade in cluster munitions by any person or body corporate. It also prohibits persons investing in or financing companies involved in the trade of cluster munitions. In order to provide transparency as to which companies trade in cluster munitions, a register of prohibited investment in cluster munitions will be established by section 8 of the Bill, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. However, for the purpose of section 3, it will be an offence for a person or body corporate to invest in a person, including a body corporate, that is placed on the register.
This will have clear implications for banks and fund managers in Ireland. It now will be the case that such companies must make inquiries as to whether their investment is being used to finance a company involved in trade in cluster munitions. It is important to stress that the obligation created is a positive one. Persons making such investment must take active steps to ensure they are not investing in companies involved in the trade of cluster munitions and neglecting to so do will not be a defence. This is contained in section 4 of the Bill. However, it will be a defence to show that reasonable inspection could not have established that the investment was in trade of cluster munitions or a person or company involved in same.
Section 5 of the Bill provides the penalties for commission of this offence. The penalty on summary conviction will be €3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. The penalty for conviction on indictment will be a fine of €1 million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. As usual, it will be for the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine from the nature of the case which form of prosecution is appropriate on a case by case basis. It is clear from these penalties that Fine Gael's goal is to achieve compliance with the legislative provisions, rather than being obliged to take the punitive route straight away.
No one benefits from the investment in trade in cluster munitions actually occurring, with the resulting fine imposed to be merely a tax on the investment. For this reason Fine Gael has suggested the fine should be comparatively low in the first instance at summary prosecution but that it should be increased dramatically for conviction on indictment to €1 million. While Fine Gael believes that encouraging compliance is the preferred option, the indictment penalty should be sufficiently large to put off even the most profitable of pensions funds.
Section 6 of the Bill provides that any cluster munitions found will be confiscated by the State and destroyed, at the expense of the owner of the cluster munitions. It also provides that the Minister will have the discretion to confiscate any means of transport used to transport cluster munitions.
Section 7 provides the framework for achieving compliance with the provisions of the Bill through forced disclosure that no investment in cluster munitions has occurred.
This Bill is the first of its kind to go further than the international consensus by targeting cluster munitions at their source, namely, funding. I believe that providing for the utmost transparency in investment and financing will itself operate as a mechanism of regulation. I believe the Irish people do not wish to see their money being used to develop and produce cluster munitions and that through their capacity as consumers they have enormous power to dictate the corporate social responsibility agenda of large corporate bodies. While the framework provided should stem the need for prosecutions, Fine Gael strongly advocates that where it does not, heavy financial penalties should be imposed by the courts.
It is not the goal of Fine Gael to go after big business, stem the profitability of pension funds, put company directors in jail or impose massive fines that would dent the competitiveness of Irish funds. Our goal is to remove cluster munitions from the vernacular of international affairs. It is to remove these horrifically destructive weapons from use and to prevent them from injuring innocent civilians many years after the original conflict. As Ireland neither produces nor stores them, how can Members act to ensure that Ireland plays no role in their development and use? It has a small but powerful economy and through the provision of a regulatory framework, backed up by serious punitive measures to prohibit investment in cluster munitions, it can make its mark in the fight against the use of these cruel weapons of war.
One regularly hears the Government claiming the Opposition fails to come up with proposals. This proposal in no way conflicts with Government policy and I am sure it reflects the will of the people. While I do not believe there are difficulties associated with the Bill, any such difficulties may be addressed on Committee Stage.
The Bill does not include efforts to deal with human damage, which I believe should be addressed through humanitarian aid. In addition, the Bill does not rule out Ireland operating with countries that still use such munitions, as this would have too great an impact on Ireland's peacekeeping duties. However, Ireland would never operate in the system in an offensive manner when such weapons would be used. The Minister should reflect before moving his amendment.
For clarity, will Deputy Coveney be content with eight minutes and the following Deputies with four minutes each?
I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to notify me after seven minutes.
I will do so.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Timmins, for introducing this legislation. Those who may be watching proceedings from outside the Chamber and who are not familiar with this campaign or issue may be wondering the reason Fine Gael has introduced this Bill before the House when many domestic issues need to be addressed. When people listen to what has been said, they will realise this is an important issue in the context of Ireland's foreign policy and our humanitarian and peacekeeping work.
Having read the Government amendment, I do not understand why the Minister for Foreign Affairs cannot accept this Bill with a view to amending it at a later stage if he deems it appropriate to do so. The Bill is timely because this House has an opportunity to provide leadership in advance of the conference in Croke Park at the end of May, when representatives from all over the world will meet to discuss the issue. I wish the Minister well in achieving the conference's goal of agreeing a text on an international convention banning the use of these weapons, which pose a particular threat to children. This evening presents us with an opportunity for Ireland to put legislation in place domestically to ensure companies based here in no way support, supply or profit from the cluster bomb industry.
The international campaign to ban cluster munitions has been proactive and it continues to gather pace and influence. In February 2007 an international meeting in Oslo set in motion the process of concluding by 2008 a legally binding international instrument that prohibits the use and stockpiling of cluster munitions and secures adequate care and rehabilitation for sufferers and clearance of contaminated areas. Initially, 46 states agreed to the Oslo declaration, followed by meetings in Lima in May 2006 and Vienna in December 2007 attended by 138 states. This February, a meeting in Wellington agreed to the Wellington declaration which reaffirmed the objectives set out in Oslo. We hope the Dublin conference, which will be held between 19 and 30 May, will be the final piece in the jigsaw of drafting the first international agreement on cluster munitions. The Minister might not be in his current job by the end of May but, if he is, it will be a significant achievement for Irish foreign policy if he reaches an agreement.
I spent three years in the European Parliament working on a variety of human rights issues. I compiled paragraphs for two annual human rights reports for the Parliament which called for a ban on cluster munitions and increased momentum towards an international arms trade treaty which would initially focus on small arms. The existing code of conduct for the sale of arms within the EU is not sufficient and needs to be made legally binding.
Since the 1950s cluster bombs have been used in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chad, Iraq, Chechnya, Sudan and Kosovo. In 2006, up to 4 million cluster bombs were dropped in southern Lebanon. I recall the Israeli ambassador to the EU coming before a human rights sub-committee of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs in an attempt to justify the deployment of that quantity of cluster bombs on an area which will be contaminated for decades to come because of decisions taken at the end of the hostilities. The only excuse he could give was that the bombs were brightly coloured and therefore civilians and children in particular were unlikely to stand on them.
These are brutal, crude and indiscriminate weapons. They are not intended to target soldiers. Their purpose is clearing land and making it almost impossible for people to return to their homes following conflict. They are often used in bitter situations prior to the signing of military truces to inflict damage that lasts decades after the cessation of hostilities. They have no place in modern military operations and any defence of them needs to be strongly challenged. Confirmed casualties from cluster munitions exceed 13,000 but it is believed that figure is many times lower than the actual number of deaths and injuries because in many of the countries contaminated by them it has become impossible to get accurate records. Civilians comprise 98% of the casualties of cluster munitions. They are more lethal than landmines because it is at least possible to keep a record of where landmines have been deployed in order to facilitate the process of clearing minefields. Dropping a cluster bomb is like firing thousands of tennis balls in all directions from 100 feet above the ground. They land in such a variety of areas that it is almost impossible to clear them.
This is an area of foreign policy which Ireland should aggressively pursue in order to bring about an end to weapons which should have been discontinued many years ago. Unfortunately, they will continue to maim and kill children and their families for decades to come in areas which have already suffered enough from conflict.
I compliment Deputy Timmins on having the heart and the guts to bring this Bill before the Dáil. People might say we have more important matters to consider but this is a very serious issue. I call on the Minister to accept the Bill given that on 13 December 2007 the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs called for the Government to introduce legislation to deal with cluster bombs. The late Princess Diana was one of the people who led the campaign on cluster munitions. The devastation wrought by these weapons is outrageous.
Cluster bombs were used in Iraq. God help the people of that country because the ammunition used against them is not known. We were told they had weapons of mass destruction but some of them did not even have a loaf of bread to feed themselves or keep themselves alive. We listened to propaganda from governments that should have known better. To this day, no weapons of mass destruction were found. The only destruction that has been found were the dead bodies buried by Saddam Hussein. Governments knew what was happening in that country and its dictator should and could have been taken out. We did not need to kill so many thousands of people in Iraq. Dictators were removed in other countries and the dictator in Iraq could have been similarly treated. It is wrong that any civilised government or army would use this kind of weapon to kill people. As Deputy Timmins said, young children walking and playing often pick up these brightly coloured bombs and end up without an arm or leg and in some cases are killed. It is time these weapons were taken out of existence. The Government has a very important part to play. We do not know whether Deputy Dermot Ahern will be Minister for Foreign Affairs next week or whether he will be Minister for Finance or Tánaiste. However, we call on him to use his influence and that of the Government to ensure these bombs are taken out of existence so young children and innocent people will not be murdered in future. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, under the chairmanship of Deputy Michael Woods, has called for this.
I again compliment Deputy Timmins for bringing this important and timely motion to the House. I wish our troops in Chad the very best of luck. It is a dangerous mission and I hope every single one of them who goes there will come back safely. I know they will do this country proud, as they have done in the past. Deputy Timmins did this country proud. He served his country abroad and he knows what he is taking about.
I compliment Deputy Timmins on this important motion. I urge the House to support the Cluster Munitions Bill 2008. While concerned citizens of the world work to pass legislation to limit the production, storage, export and use of various forms of cluster munitions, it is important that we in this country ensure we have no hand, act or part in the financing, manufacturing or transport of components for cluster bombs. To do so will also send a message to other countries that such weapons are an unacceptable part of any military arsenal.
Cluster munitions are widely stockpiled by more than 70 states and are documented to have caused significant civilian deaths and injuries and have frequently been used indiscriminately during conflicts. They have injured and killed thousands of innocent civilians in some 25 countries. From the first large-scale use of cluster bombs in Laos from 1964 to 1973 to the most recent use of cluster bombs in Lebanon in 2006, the results have remained the same.
Cluster munitions eject a large number of smaller bomblets. The most common types are intended to kill enemy personnel and destroy vehicles. Cluster bombs often miss their target and significant numbers of cluster bombs fail to function as designed. The area affected by a single cluster munition, known as its footprint, can be as large as two or three football fields. Because of the weapon's broad area of effect, it has often been documented as striking both civilian and military objects in the target area. The cluster bombs disperse over a wide area in ways that are not predictable. This characteristic of the weapon is particularly dangerous for civilians when cluster munitions are used in or near populated areas and has been documented by research reports from groups such as Human Rights Watch.
While all weapons are potentially dangerous to civilians, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians as they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. These bomblets remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict. They are prone to indiscriminate use and they pose severe and lasting risks to civilians from unexploded submunitions. The bomblets may be duds, a significant percentage may not detonate as designed and in some cases the weapons are designed to detonate at a later stage. For example, after the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, UN experts estimated that as many as 1 million unexploded bomblets contaminate the hundreds of cluster munition strike sites in Lebanon. In all these cases, the surviving bomblets are live and can explode when handled, making them a serious threat to civilians entering the area. In effect, they function like landmines and in practice are more dangerous as they are more likely to kill than injure a casualty.
Cluster bombs injure and kill civilians long after wars are over. They cause significant humanitarian impact on the local civilian population. Bombs that fail to explode on impact are still lethal and often maim or kill adults and especially children going about their daily activities long after hostilities are past. Through more than 40 years of use, over 90% of known cluster bomb casualties are civilians. Up to 98% of 13,306 recorded cluster munitions casualties that are registered with Handicap International are civilians.
Belgium was the first country to issue a ban on the carrying, transportation, export, stockpiling, trade and production of cluster munitions. Austria followed suit in 2007. This Cluster Munitions Bill 2008 provides us with an extraordinary opportunity to stand with the ordinary citizens of the world community by doing our part to stop the manufacture, export and use of cluster bombs that are known to cause irreparable harm to civilian communities.
It is important that we unite with one voice to send a strong message to the rest of the world that Ireland wants a comprehensive ban treaty at the negotiations to take place in Dublin this May. I urge the Minister to consider this Bill seriously. I compliment Deputy Timmins and urge support for his important legislation, which would give a very clear message. We must stand united on this issue, which Deputy Timmins has correctly brought to the Chamber.
I join with previous speakers in complimenting Deputy Timmins on bringing forward this important legislation. As Deputy Ring said, Deputy Timmins has served on a number of UN missions and has first-hand knowledge of the effects of cluster bombs on the ground. With that experience, he speaks with great authority on this subject. We are lucky to have somebody of his calibre and experience in the House because of his informed judgment on various international issues regarding UN missions.
As Deputy Timmins noted, cluster munitions are a large and growing problem. If their use continues to spread — if some countries have their way, this will happen — and the number of countries using them continues to grow, which is happening, they may become an even greater humanitarian and development challenge than anti-personnel mines were in the 1990s.
During the past 20 years, wars in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere have clearly demonstrated the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of this type of weapon, not only during wars but also long after armed conflicts have ended. We have seen many television programmes that dealt with the consequences of cluster munitions and we have seen how many people lost limbs, with families being destroyed while going about their daily business. The consequences are horrific.
Cluster munitions cover large areas and do not discriminate between civilians and military personnel. Depending on the type of munition, the size of the area they cover ranges from a few hundred metres to about 20 hectares. When people are being attacked, they are prepared for it but what is worse about cluster munitions is that they often produce a large number of duds, which can have horrific consequences. These remain lying on the ground, on roofs, in collapsed houses or even caught in trees and can have the same effect as anti-personnel mines.
The Minister has played a leading role internationally in his opposition to cluster bombs. Given that approximately 80 governments from all over the world will converge on Croke Park in May for the two-week conference, the Minister would be armed in some way if he accepted Deputy Timmins's legislation. He could point to the fact there is unanimity in the House on this issue and that the Opposition had brought forward a very good Bill, which the Minister was prepared to accept and move to Committee to be improved or refined. I am disappointed that as a pragmatist, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, could not accept the Bill proposed by Deputy Timmins. I accept the Minister is probably getting direction from somewhere. The Bill is well considered and thought through and would be very effective if implemented. It would also lead the way internationally and provide a basis for good and effective legislation.
I wish to share time with Charlie McCreevy, I mean Deputy Charlie O'Connor. That was a Freudian slip.
You could do with him back.
If Deputy O'Connor appears in the Chamber I will give him ten minutes of my time.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
If he does not appear I will continue for a further ten minutes as this is an issue about which I am passionate.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann:
welcoming the role being played by the Government in international efforts to secure a total prohibition on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians through its active participation in international initiatives to address the issue comprehensively, in line with its commitments in the programme for Government;
noting the convening by the Government of a diplomatic conference in Dublin in May 2008 to negotiate a new instrument of international humanitarian law on cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians;
recalling the intention of the Government shortly to establish a national committee on international humanitarian law;
noting that this committee will have, as its first task, the preparation of comprehensive draft legislation to give effect to the new instrument and to enact a domestic ban, thereby enabling its early introduction in the Oireachtas;
resolves that the Cluster Munitions Bill 2008 be read a Second Time this day nine months.
Some time back I visited Lebanon in the aftermath of the recent conflagration between the Lebanese and Israel and saw for myself the incredible work that our troops were carrying out there in assistance with the Finns. During the visit I saw also the devastation caused by cluster munitions. As a result I said clearly to my officials that I wanted Ireland to be in the vanguard of nations in proposing an international ban on these most unacceptable instruments of war. Accordingly, I asked last year that the Fianna Fáil general election manifesto contain the specific commitment that, if returned to office, we would campaign for a complete ban on the use of cluster munitions. Thankfully, in the negotiations for Government involving ourselves, the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats, there was support for the inclusion of the proposed ban contained in the election manifesto in the programme for Government.
Today that campaign is Government policy and is led by my Department. One of the major inputs into this campaign is the holding of an international conference in Dublin in May. The aim is to conclude a legally binding convention that will prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. There will also be measures to deal with the care and rehabilitation of survivors, clearance of contaminated areas, risk education and destruction of stockpiles.
In that context I welcome the opportunity to give vent to a number of issues in this area. I thank the Opposition parties for their strong support but I wish to point out that this is something which should not divide the parties in this House. I made an effort to ensure we would not divide in this House and I will outline the reason we cannot accept the Fine Gael Bill, which I will not criticise. The strategy which the Government has adopted is the correct one given that next month there will be a significant conference which up to 1,000 delegates will attend for two weeks to deliberate on this issue. I am pleased to acknowledge the shared revulsion of all the parties in this House on the use of cluster munitions. It is important to recognise that the Seanad also tabled an all-party motion on 6 March last on this issue.
One of the issues that is important in this context is the National Pensions Reserve Fund. As Members of this House are aware, but perhaps not those outside it, the Government put in place a substantial pension reserve fund to pay for a portion of pensions into the future. As part of that process, fund managers are given an opportunity to invest in companies around the world. They do that independent of Government. It came to my attention in recent months that there was a possibility that National Pensions Reserve Fund managers could be investing in companies involved in the manufacture of cluster munitions. When it was brought to my attention a number of months ago I raised the matter with the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance and I also spoke at the time to the chairman and CEO of the National Pensions Reserve Fund to insist that as far as Government was concerned no public funds should be expended on these investments.
Thankfully, the National Pensions Reserve Fund has indicated it is willing to move along those lines based on ethical guidelines and on the example we are taking from the Norwegians who have banned investment by its pensions reserve fund in specific companies. No public funds should be invested in these cluster munitions and we will give cover to the National Pensions Reserve Fund in the proposed legislation we will bring forward in the coming months.
While the investment issue is the main focus, apart from the total ban, the Government accepts it is only one element of the broader, more comprehensive approach that is required on this issue. Ireland has never possessed cluster munitions, nor does it intend to, and is therefore not in the situation of a number of states which have adopted national prohibitions. Our firm intention is to legislate for a total domestic ban on cluster munitions and, in addition, to give effect to the provisions of the convention which we hope will be agreed next month at the conference. This legislation not only will be intended to prohibit the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of cluster munitions but will go much further.
I do not want to rush the legislation, I want a legislative template for other nations. I reiterate that I do not wish the House to divide on this issue. In addition to a complete ban on cluster munitions, our legislation will contain provisions for assistance to victims of cluster munitions; the clearance of areas contaminated by unexploded cluster munitions — I saw the Irish troops working with the Finns on my visit to Lebanon; assistance in the destruction of stockpiles of cluster munitions; and for other matters to be agreed in negotiations at the Dublin diplomatic conference.
I want this to be the comprehensive model for other nations sharing our determination to rid the world of these munitions. That is why I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of the negotiations by enacting legislation this month and then find that following the diplomatic conference we have to, in effect, go back to the drawing board. I firmly believe that is what we should do or we would fail to provide adequately for the obligations the State will assume under the new instrument.
It is the Government's intention, therefore, to enact the necessary legislation as soon as possible following conclusion of the negotiations and finalisation of the convention at the conference in May. I stress that this approach is supported by prominent non-governmental organisations in this area who agree with the Government's approach. They believe it will ensure the most effective and complete implementation of any new agreement that is reached next month. The Government therefore believes that the Dáil should postpone consideration of the Bill for nine months.
We do not disagree with the thrust of the Bill, but we think it would make sense to legislate when we are fully clear on the international dimension of the issue, as per the conference next month. To ensure that the legislation is of the highest possible quality, the Government has agreed to establish a new national committee on humanitarian law, which will have as its first task preparation of comprehensive legislation. My intention is that the committee, on which all relevant Departments and offices of State will be represented, will begin its work in advance of the diplomatic conference so that the Oireachtas will be in a position to enact legislation at an early date and thereby enable Ireland's early ratification of any new convention.
When prepared, the draft legislation will be given the necessary priority in the Oireachtas timetable. I already have the agreement of Government in that respect. Ireland was one of the first countries to ratify the Ottawa Convention and I hope Members share my desire to ensure that Ireland should be among the first to ratify the cluster munitions convention which I hope will emerge from the Dublin conference.
The 2007-12 programme for Government commits us to:
Campaign for a complete ban on the use of cluster munitions. In the absence of a full ban we will seek agreement on an immediate freeze on the use of cluster munitions pending the establishment of effective international instruments to address humanitarian concerns regarding their use.
Ireland has been playing an important role in international efforts to this end through its participation in the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and, more significantly, through active engagement and leadership in the Oslo process. The Dublin diplomatic conference will be the critical stage in the process and while difficult issues remain, I am confident it will be possible to finalise a treaty at the conference.
For several years, Ireland has been expressing its concerns at the unacceptable consequences of the use of cluster munitions in the UN context. Two main issues arise. First, the use of cluster munitions can be indiscriminate at the time of use, thus harming civilians who are within range and in practice this is usually the case. Second, the high failure rate of submunitions at the time of impact creates an enduring hazard of unexploded ordnance, causing casualties long after the cessation of hostilities and making much land unusable. At present, international humanitarian law does not adequately address these concerns. The lethal consequences of these weapons were most recently apparent in southern Lebanon but have also affected south-east Asia, the Balkans and other theatres of war.
In light of the absence of progress in Geneva and inspired by the process which led to the conclusion of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines ten years ago, Norway convened a meeting in Oslo in February 2007 of countries ready to explore ways to address the issue of cluster munitions in a determined and effective manner. Forty-six states present adopted the Oslo declaration which committed them to conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument that will "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians". Ireland is one of seven states driving the Oslo process, along with Norway, Austria, New Zealand, Mexico, Peru and the Holy See. We have participated actively in a series of conferences in Oslo, Lima, Vienna and, most recently, Wellington to identify the issues, clarify positions and formulate a draft treaty.
Political momentum has grown significantly and almost 100 states have already endorsed the recent Wellington declaration which lays the foundation for the Dublin diplomatic conference. Many more states are expected to indicate their support in the coming months and participate in the negotiations in Dublin. Current expectations are that between 800 and 1,000 delegates from a wide range of governments, international organisations and NGOs will attend the conference. On behalf of Ireland, I offered to host this important conference which will last for two weeks and bring considerable business to Dublin and Croke Park. On my instruction, embassies around the world are actively seeking to ascertain the positions of countries as we prepare for the conference.
Significant differences remain to be resolved on key issues such as definitions, any possible period of transition to a ban and future military co-operation, including in UN-mandated missions with states not party to the convention, an issue raised by Deputy Timmins. There is reason to believe that these differences can be resolved and prospective solutions for many less contentious issues have already emerged in the course of the earlier meetings in the process. I am confident we are on track for the adoption of a convention which will be comprehensive and effective and will get users, producers and cluster munitions-affected states on board.
It is also our aim to establish a new norm of international humanitarian law which will influence the behaviour of every state engaging in conflict, regardless of whether they have ratified the convention. This has been the experience of the Ottawa Convention in stigmatising the use of landmines, even by states which are not party to it. We believe this experience can be emulated.
As I stated, the key aim of the new treaty will be to prohibit the unacceptable humanitarian harm caused by cluster munitions. However, we must also look to the past impact and the damage inflicted on societies and individuals by these horrendous weapons. I saw the terrible risk posed to civilian populations by unexploded cluster munitions in Lebanon when I was given a demonstration by the Defence Forces of the types of cluster munitions used in the area by the Israelis. It was significant that some of these devices looked very much like children's toys. An annex to the recent Winograd report on the Israeli war against Lebanon clearly shows the difficulties that the authors of the report saw in relation to the use by the Israelis of cluster munitions in Lebanon.
The draft convention contains strong provisions for humanitarian assistance to victims, the clearance of areas contaminated by unexploded cluster munitions, assistance in the destruction of stockpiles of these weapons and risk education. I am hopeful the treaty which emerges from the negotiations will be the most comprehensive of its kind in addressing these needs.
The Government is fully committed to support for victim assistance, clearance of areas contaminated by unexploded remnants of war, destruction of stockpiles, risk education and support for rehabilitation of survivors and their socioeconomic integration. As I outlined, these issues will be addressed comprehensively in the convention. I emphasise our desire to ensure the provisions of the convention will be included in legislation.
Even now, the Government is working to fulfil these commitments in close co-operation with NGOs and with UN agencies. Since 2000, we have provided approximately €20 million in funding to meet needs in this area. Irish Aid has an ongoing relationship with a number of the leading NGOs operating in this field. Our partners include HALO Trust, Mine Action Group and Handicap International and we have provided funding to Explosive Remnants of War — ERW — and relief measures in Somalia, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique and Iraq, among other countries. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael P. Kitt, recently approved €1.875 million of funding for HALO Trust’s de-mining activities in three countries in 2008. It is anticipated that the expansion of the Irish Aid budget will result in an increase in the level of funding available to respond to proposals from suitable partners.
The Cluster Munitions Bill before us contains a broad definition of "trade" in cluster munitions, which encompasses not only what is generally understood to be trade, that is, import, export and transit, but also such aspects as development, design and production. I will focus briefly on the purely trade issues, in particular control on the export and transit of cluster munitions. In the context of its commitment to disarmament and arms control, Ireland has committed to operating an effective export control system in accordance with our international obligations. In this regard, Deputies will be aware that just over a month ago we enacted the new Control of Exports Act 2008 which updates and modernises our legislative regime governing the export of military and dual use goods. It is timely to recall what the legislation sought to achieve because while I do not believe there is any real prospect of the manufacture of cluster munitions being undertaken here, the Control of Exports Act remains relevant to ensuring there can be no export, brokering or rendering of technical assistance in relation to such munitions.
The Control of Exports Act represents this Government's tangible commitment to having in place a robust export control system that can best meet the challenges we face at a time of rapid geopolitical and technological developments. Combating cluster munitions is one of these challenges. Section 3 of the Act enables the control of arms brokering activities. Not only does it provide for controls to be imposed on brokering activities undertaken in the State, it also extends such controls with regard to activities outside the State if undertaken by an Irish citizen or company.
The issue of extra-territoriality was a key consideration when framing this section. A person normally resident here could, for example, arrange for an arms transfer, while temporally outside the State, of goods which at no point transit through Ireland. In the absence of appropriate legislation, on his or her return to Ireland no prosecution could follow, notwithstanding that an arms embargo might have been breached or Irish export control laws evaded.
Section 5 of the Control of Exports Act provides for orders or regulations to be made to control technical assistance, such as repairs, maintenance, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, training and instruction and consultancy services. The joint action commits member states to imposing controls on technical assistance in connection with certain military uses. During the debate on the Act, and in the context of drafting the secondary legislation to give it full effect, the Government indicated its willingness to examine the possibility of broadening this control in consultation with interested parties.
I value the commitment of all Oireachtas parties to combat the scourge of these weapons. The Government is determined to achieve the strongest possible prohibition of cluster munitions and to make a meaningful difference to the lives and livelihood of vulnerable civilians around the world who have suffered from their use. I have made clear my personal and long-standing engagement on this issue.
Ireland is playing a strong leadership role in international efforts to this end through its participation in the Oslo process and the convening of the forthcoming Dublin conference. We are committed to carrying forward the outcome of the conference in domestic legislation and policy and ensure the resources at our disposal are available to support victim assistance etc.
I thank Deputy Timmins for introducing his Private Members' Bill. I must, however, emphasise the Government is not voting against the Bill but postponing it because we believe it needs to be much more comprehensive. It makes no sense to pass legislation and then restrict ourselves on Committee Stage. At my instigation, Dublin will host the forthcoming diplomatic conference on cluster munitions in May. After that, there will be a better and broader idea of what is required in this area.
While Deputy Timmins introduced the Bill as an Opposition Member, he has acknowledged the Government has worked away on this matter. However, I believe it is better to park the legislation. The Government will introduce its legislation over the next nine months after the conference's deliberations. Then we will have a better opportunity to deal with the broader issues involved, not just a total ban on cluster munitions but the issues concerning the National Pensions Reserve Fund.
I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, for sharing time. I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the whole of his speech but I was attending the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting, paying tribute to my fellow Dubliner, the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern. If I still sound sad and emotional, that is the reason.
I thank Deputy Timmins and the Fine Gael Party for their engagement on the cluster munitions issue, which is of high priority for the Government and on which the Minister for Foreign Affairs has personally taken a lead role. I fully support the Minister's course of action and his proposed amendment.
For several years, Ireland has expressed its concerns in the UN at the unacceptable consequences of the use of cluster munitions. The use of cluster munitions can be indiscriminate, harming civilians within range. Their high failure rate at impact creates an enduring hazard of unexploded ordnance, causing casualties long after the cessation of hostilities and making much land unusable. International humanitarian law does not adequately address these concerns. The lethal consequences of these weapons were recently apparent in southern Lebanon but have also affected south-east Asia, the Balkans and other theatres of war.
Our concern on this issue is inspired by our tradition of involvement in UN peacekeeping operations in the Lebanon, former Yugoslavia and Eritrea. There our troops were exposed to the hazards inherent in clearance of unexploded cluster munitions and witnessed the harm caused by them to civilians. Many brave peacekeepers from the Dublin South-West constituency have participated in these operations.
Cluster munitions were first used on the port of Grimsby during the Second World War. They subsequently formed part of NATO arsenals during the Cold War for possible defensive use in the event of a large-scale invasion from the East across the central European plains.
They were used on an enormous scale during the Vietnam War, with Laos, not even a declared participant in the war, becoming the most affected country in the world. It has over 9 million unexploded submunitions, many of which continue to cause casualties and remain to be cleared. There was also extensive use during the wars involving Iraq. In Israel's attempt in 2006 to counter Hizbollah operating from within Lebanon, some 4 million submunitions were fired into south Lebanon, leaving around 1 million unexploded individual submunitions on the ground.
Inspired by the process which led to the conclusion of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Norway convened a meeting of countries ready to explore ways to address this pressing humanitarian issue in a determined and effective manner. Recognising the grave consequences caused by the use of cluster munitions and the need for immediate action, 46 states gathered in Oslo in February 2007.
They adopted the Oslo declaration, which committed them to conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument that will "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians". They also committed to co-operation and assistance for survivors and affected communities, clearance of affected areas and destruction of stockpiles. They agreed to consider steps at national level, pending adoption of a treaty.
Follow-up meetings in Lima, Vienna and Wellington saw the number of participating states grow to over 130. Many are also involved in the UN's convention on certain conventional weapons, the CCW process, and hope for a complementary approach in both fora. To date, the influence has been one-way, with Oslo stimulating discussion in the CCW, albeit without any concrete results. Apart from the fact that not all affected states are party to the CCW, its main difficulty is that decisions are taken by consensus, meaning there is little realistic prospect of users or producers agreeing to a meaningful treaty.
Ireland is one of seven states driving the Oslo process, along with Norway, Austria, New Zealand, Mexico, Peru and the Holy See. We have participated actively in the conferences in Oslo, Lima, Vienna and Wellington to identify the issues, clarify positions and formulate a draft treaty. Political momentum has grown significantly.
At the February conference in Wellington, more than 80 states immediately endorsed the Wellington declaration, which lays the foundation for the Dublin diplomatic conference to take place in Croke Park in May. Many more states are expected to indicate their support in the coming months and participate in the Dublin negotiations.
There are still significant differences to be resolved on key issues such as definitions, any possible period of transition to a ban and future military co-operation, including in UN-mandated missions with states not party to a convention. There is, however, reason to believe these can be resolved.
Prospective solutions for many less contentious issues have already emerged in the course of the earlier meetings in the process. It is important this process results in a text which will stand the test of time with technological developments, and capable of attracting adherents to gain critical mass.
I am confident we are on track for the adoption of a convention which will be comprehensive and effective and will get users, producers and states affected by cluster munitions on board. It is also our aim to establish a new norm of international humanitarian law which will influence the behaviour of every state engaged in conflict, regardless of whether they have ratified the convention. This has been the experience of the Ottawa convention in stigmatising the use of land mines even by states not party to it. We believe this experience can be emulated.
I wish the Minister well in dealing with this matter. I am happy to praise the two Wicklow Deputies across the Chamber who often travel through Tallaght. I wish them well in that regard.
Very quickly I must say.
I understand this speaking slot is for 30 minutes and, therefore, I will share with Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin into tomorrow evening.
As the Deputy wishes.
First, I join with others in welcoming the opportunity to discuss this issue. Before I go further I pay tribute to Pax Christi, which has been informing Deputies and Senators about the issue, and particularly Tony D'Costa, who has worked not just on this issue but previously on the landmines matter. That work should be supported.
The two issues which arise are important. There is an issue of principle, that is, whether we want from the conference a complete and universal ban with no exceptions. That is a fundamental. An issue arising from this is a matter of definition. There will be a struggle over definition, represented by countries on one side such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which will seek to retain certain forms of cluster munitions. It would be pointless to imagine this will not happen.
When we speak of a universal ban without exception, a second issue arises of how we will achieve this goal. Previous speakers made interesting remarks drawing parallels with the Ottawa Convention on landmines, which is interesting in this regard. I was a member of the Cabinet at that time and I propose to refer to some of the experience of Dick Spring in the influencing of that convention.
The second point is therefore a simple one — how do we achieve a complete and universal ban without exceptions? As a matter of housekeeping, I indicate that if we were to operate very quickly, we could make a statutory instrument. A legal opinion was advised to me that we could take Statutory Instrument 175/1996, the order entitled Explosive (Landmines) Order 1996, and model a statutory instrument on that. Why would we do so? I will turn to the Fine Gael Bill in a moment. A political choice has to be made but we would act in this way precisely for the reason one influenced the Ottawa Convention. We would do so because we want to lay down a kind of template to govern the outcome of the conference. The political choice therefore is one as to whether we wait for the committee, wait nine months and respond to a conference which we have missed the opportunity of influencing. That is the political reality.
I would favour the drafting of a statutory instrument so as to have it quickly in place before the conference takes place but I am still happy to support a Second Stage reading of the Fine Gael proposal. I congratulate Deputy Timmins on bringing the Fine Gael Party with him. If the Bill passed Second Stage, I would, on behalf of the Labour Party, propose significant amendments on Committee Stage. They would perhaps be reflective of the motion, in my name and that of Senator Norris, passed by the foreign affairs committee. That included a number of issues but I would stress one particular factor. If we go for a universal ban on cluster munitions because of the reasons we have heard from speakers on all sides, we must therefore be consistent and refuse to have our troops use them, even if they are involved in joint operations with other forces, be it in terms of peace establishment, peace making, peacekeeping and so forth.
I come therefore to two principles which exist. One is incredibly important and it is tragic it even must be mentioned. This is the sheer nature of cluster bombs, attractive-looking colourful things lying on the ground to be picked up by children or anybody. We can see the consequences in terms of their widespread diffusion, like droplets, which can lead to the removal of limbs and death. Some 80 million of these were dropped in Vietnam by the United States, and a million were dropped in southern Lebanon in the last 48 hours before peace. I agree with speakers who have stated the purpose of such bombs is to clear areas rather than achieve significant military advantage. I do not need to repeat figures which have been given already about the fact that, as a military exercise, these munitions are quite insufficient in many respects and in terms of their projected aim. The real aim is to make an area unusable, with 98% casualties, as has been pointed out. There is no study to suggest civilian casualties are less than 90%. We are agreed on that. If we are now going to address the issue of definition and technology, it must be such that people cannot bring new forms of cluster munition into existence. That is the issue of definition and there is nothing vague in it. It is also perfectly clear that France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands will want to go down that road.
The next part of the issue relates to making a ban universal, which includes principles such as interoperability. What is done in that regard? Looking at the replies given in this House by my colleague, the then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Deputy Dick Spring, the slow process we went through going to the endpoint of the Ottawa Convention on landmines becomes clear. At a crucial stage it was very important Norway and Ireland did just what is now being advocated and offered a template which would govern the outcome. That was the positive, constructive way to go.
That is the choice this evening. We either act before the conference gets going and before there are divisions or else suggest that we will, in the margins, be able to make such a case that when it comes out, it will have brought us to a point where a new principle of international humanitarian law will be satisfied.
That is a risk we should not take. On behalf of the Labour Party, I received a legal opinion after the motion in my name and that of Senator Norris was unanimously passed by the foreign affairs committee that legally, we did not need to draft legislation and we could make a statutory instrument which would have an influence. I also looked at the nature of statutory instruments in that regard. In 1996, when there was a discussion here, it was possible to make an order under the Explosives Act 1875, which had been transferred through other instruments to current and contemporary law. It banned the uses of certain kinds of anti-personnel munitions.
We should be clear. As I have stated, the Fine Gael motion might shy away from tackling issues of real importance and substance but I could deal with these on Committee Stage. I urge support for Deputy Timmins's Bill this evening and the Labour Party will vote for it. It should be allowed to proceed to the next stage and I am not at all convinced of the alternative process, namely to form a committee, which would then issue an opinion, which would influence the possible heads of a Bill within nine months. We are not even offered a conclusion. The argument is that one should not act as one will influence the conference taking place in Croke Park between 19 May and 30 May next. However, that is precisely what we want to do.
Considering it another way, if we lost an issue of principle we would go to our own committee, preparing legislation with the horse having bolted. There are agreements between us in issues of principle and the consequence of cluster munitions on the planet, but there is a difference in the political tactics. Given the experience we have had with the landmines convention and what we know of the process as discussed in this House, we should act in advance to get the best possible outcome. There is significant public support for securing a total prohibition on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of cluster munitions, and it is incumbent on us to speak clearly and unequivocally on the matter.
Another point we should stress is the hypocrisy involved in those who sign up to international treaties which on the one hand accept the principle of international jurisprudence with a flourish of rhetoric but at the same time come to a conference seeking such departures from obligation as would enable the defeat of the principle involved. The use of cluster munitions is one of the great obscenities of our time.
Ireland has an opportunity to recover the moment to which I refer. It should be recalled that we find ourselves in circumstances similar to those which obtained during the Ottawa process, when Ireland worked with Norway to save an adequate outcome. At present, Austria and Belgium have acted in advance. Belgium is significant because it used to be a producer and supplier of landmines. The effect of the previous global debate on landmines changed the position to such an extent that Belgium is now one of the two European countries which have taken the initiative on cluster munitions.
I wish to comment on the use of cluster munitions, which are notorious in the context of their imprecision. For example, studies show that they are only 40% effective in the context of exploding immediately after impact. This means that 60% of these munitions are left lying around to do incredible damage among civilian populations over a long period. When the debate on landmines took place, Boutros Boutros-Ghali stated that they are weapons of mass destruction in slow motion. One could almost repeat that statement in respect of cluster munitions, which can be picked up by children long after military conflicts have ended.
Let us reflect on the jurisprudence involved here. After a ceasefire, a cessation of hostilities, a potential agreement or the possible definition of territory, part of a landmass can be left unusable for the civilian population, the members of which can be placed at inordinate and indiscriminate risk. The people to whom I refer are protected by all the international conventions and may not have participated in the original conflict. That is what is obscene about the cluster munitions and it turns to ashes the arguments of those who use them regarding any of the international treaties they may have signed.
I agree that it is obscene that funds aimed at providing people with security in their old age should be invested in the production of cluster munitions. Ireland's hands are not clean. Those responsible for the National Pension Reserve Fund have already invested €500 million in companies that produce cluster bombs. I refer here to Raytheon, General Dynamics, 1-3 Communications in the United States, EADS in the Netherlands and Thales in France. If we are serious about banning these munitions, we must halt such investment.
On Second Stage of the Control of Exports Bill, I referred to the importance of eliminating brokerage. I welcome the Minister of State's assurance that brokerage among those living outside the jurisdiction can be controlled. Again, however, it is not acceptable to call for the abolition of these munitions while, as has been the case to date through investments made by the National Pensions Reserve Fund, benefiting from their production.
I am delighted the Minister for Foreign Affairs is facilitating the convention that will take place at Croke Park and I pay tribute to him for doing so. Equally, however, I recognise that the United States, Russia and China will seek exceptions at that convention. The Minister has already hinted at two exceptions in respect of definitions, which would allow new technological forms that would have the same effect and a period of transition. If we agree with the moral case and the international legal case and are aware of the consequences, how then can we justify such exceptions?
When I served as a Minister, we received reports from a United Nations debate during which the then Secretary General asked how many more million landmines would be produced and how many more women and children would be put at risk. Why should a period of transition be needed if one accepts the force of the argument? Would it not be practical for the Minister to employ this as a template of his definitions and statements regarding universal applicability and adopt it as an opening position for the conference he will host and chair?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs must explain why he is not using SI 175 of 1966 as a basis for his actions. I have received legal advice to the effect that this instrument is the fastest possible way to proceed because there is no need to undergo the drafting process. As regards the enabling legislation relating to the use of such a statutory instrument, this was all discovered when the legislation relating to landmines was debated.
I disagree with Fine Gael's Bill in the context of the principle of interoperability. If the universal banning of cluster munitions is to have real moral purchase, we must insist on the principle of interoperability. In that context, no Irish troops should work in partnership with troops from countries which continue to defend the use of such munitions. That is the position of the Labour Party and it would form the basis of any legislation I would draft.
The concept of interoperability is important. As already stated, the concept of universalisation was utilised 12 years ago in the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines. This refers to the fact that in the event of the creation of an international instrument seeking to abolish the production, stockpiling and so forth of landmines, not all nations in the international community will join from day one and many will join later. A refusal by those nations that are signatories to engage and interact with any nations which did sign meant that matters became difficult and the position became morally reprehensible. That is the meaning of the stigma that attached to the use of landmines after a significant achievement had been made. Those countries that continue to use cluster munitions should be rightly regarded as pariahs among states with anything like a concept of moral politics.
Should the Bill proceed to Committee Stage — I hope this will prove to be the case — I will table amendments that reflect the principles contained in the motion which Senator Norris and I tabled at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. These principles relate to a total prohibition on cluster munitions, national law, research, publication awareness and the role taken by Ireland on advancing jurisprudence in this area and in those of mine-risk education, the treatment of casualties etc. I compliment Deputy Timmins on suggesting the introduction of an absolute prohibition on investment in any company involved in cluster munitions production. Included under this prohibition should be the activities of companies involved in advanced technological or scientific research that does not have a direct connection to such production.
There is only one way to be moral in the context of legislation relating to the control of exports. I refer here to the point at which we become able to discover and define end use. If one can identify this point, one will then know whose hands are dirty or have blood on them because they were involved at either an intellectual and technological or a practical level.
Cluster munitions do not discriminate among their victims. There are no cluster bombs that can guarantee anybody's safety. They are an abomination and an obscenity and are like a scar on the face of humanity. That is the reason the prohibition should be universal and should allow no escape by way of subtlety of definition. The Government, even if it does not want to accept the Bill, should at this stage consider using the statutory instrument procedure to enter the conference in a strong position and provide a lead. If they were willing to accept Deputy Timmins's Bill I would be glad to work with everybody on Committee Stage to make sure the Bill represents model legislation rather than waiting, as the amendment suggests, until it is all over and then, nine months later, realising that we have the heads of a Bill. No idea of completeness or anything similar would justify having missed the opportunity of succeeding on such an important issue about which many members of the public are concerned.
I pay tribute to the NGOs who have worked on this, such as Pax Christi, and particularly Mr. D'Costa.
Debate adjourned.