Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Oct 2010

Vol. 717 No. 4

Biological Weapons Bill 2010: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The principal purpose of this Bill is to make further provision in domestic law for the State's obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, as well as relevant elements of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 of 2004. The Geneva Protocol banned the use in war of poisonous gases, as well as bacteriological methods of war. Ireland acceded to the protocol in 29 August 1930. The protocol was supplemented in much greater detail by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. Most poisonous gases are what today are referred to as chemical weapons and their development, production, stockpiling and use are prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention, which also requires the destruction of any existing chemical weapons. Extensive provision for the State's obligations under that convention was made by the Chemical Weapons Act 1997.

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention prohibits the use, production, development, stockpiling and transfer of biological weapons, extensively supplementing the 1925 protocol in so far as it applies to biological weapons. It was signed and ratified by Ireland in 1972 and entered into force on 26 March 1975. Resolution 1540 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001 with the primary aim of preventing weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons, falling into the hands of terrorist organisations and other non-state actors. The Biological Weapons Bill will create specific offences relating to the use, production and possession of biological weapons.

The use of poisonous and asphyxiating substances as weapons has been prohibited since before the First World War, although unfortunately that did not stop some countries from using poisonous gases during that war. In 1925, the Geneva Protocol reasserted its prohibition and extended it to the use of biological methods of warfare. However, the 1925 protocol contained a number of weaknesses. Most importantly, it prohibited only the use of gases and bacteriological methods of warfare, but did not ban their development, production or stockpiling. Also problematic was the fact that many states party to the protocol reserved the right to retaliate in kind if attacked with prohibited weapons. Despite the weaknesses of the Geneva Protocol, however, the use of biological weapons during the Second World War was limited.

During the Cold War period, an increasing number of countries developed biological warfare research programmes, the largest of which were conducted by the then Soviet Union and the United States. Anthrax, smallpox and plague were among the diseases researched for use as weapons. It was not until the late 1960s that attempts were made to control this type of biological weaponry. In 1969, the then US President Nixon announced the unilateral dismantlement of the US offensive bio-weapons programme. Shortly thereafter negotiations on a new global instrument to supplement the 1925 Geneva Protocol began at the conference of the committee on disarmament in Geneva. These negotiations resulted in the conclusion in 1972 of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons.

Today, no state acknowledges that it possesses biological weapons or that it has a programme to develop such weapons. The stigma attached to the use of such weapons and their prohibition under the convention have been strong deterrents. This has not, however, completely allayed concerns with regard to bio-weapon development by states. For instance, it was alleged in the early 1990s, by Soviet defectors, that the former Soviet Union had conducted a vast, clandestine biological weapons programme. Iraq, also a party to the convention, was found in 1995 to have had a considerable undeclared biological warfare programme.

There are several reasons the greatest threat arising from biological agents today may come not from states but from terrorists or other non-state actors. Biological agents are relatively cheap to develop and produce, although they are much more difficult to create as weapons and deploy. Facilities for researching and producing biological agents are easier to hide than the facilities for producing other weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the equipment involved in the production of biological agents has many legitimate civilian uses. Fortunately there have been very few instances of biological weapons use by non-state actors, the most notorious and recent being the anthrax attacks in the Washington DC area in 2001. In September and October of that year, several cases of anthrax, which when inhaled and left untreated has a fatal outcome in humans, broke out. Letters containing anthrax spores were posted to several news media offices and to the offices of two members of the United States Senate. The attacks killed five people and infected 17 others, demonstrating how easy it is to cause mayhem with such weaponry. There was widespread fear and panic which crippled the postal service and forced the evacuation of federal buildings, including Senate offices and the Supreme Court. Sales of gas masks rocketed.

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention is a hybrid instrument of international humanitarian law and disarmament and non-proliferation and it was the first multilateral treaty banning the production and use of an entire category of weapons. The convention bans the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition and retention of microbiobrial or other biological agents or toxins, in types and in quantities that "have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes". The convention currently has 163 states parties and 13 other signatories. The most noteworthy states currently not party to the convention are Israel, Egypt and Syria, although the latter two are signatories and, therefore, under the international law of treaties, are obliged to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the convention.

Review conferences are held every five years to review the operation and implementation of the convention, taking into account new and relevant scientific and technological developments. A 2001 draft verification protocol to the convention would have required states parties to declare relevant facilities and submit to inspections but this was rejected by the US Administration at the time and the negotiations on the protocol were subsequently discontinued. However, the sixth review conference held in Geneva in 2006 established the implementation support unit, ISU, to assist states parties with the implementation of the convention. At the seventh review conference in 2011, states parties to the convention will review the operation of the ISU.

Fortunately, biological weapons have only rarely been used. Their development, production and deployment entail numerous and serious hazards for those trying to use them. Nevertheless, it has long been recognised that if these difficulties can be overcome biological weapons have the capacity to kill thousands of people and to sow hysteria and panic in the general population. A biological weapon delivers to its target a biological agent, which causes infection or allergy, or the toxic product of a biological agent called a "toxin" which causes poisoning. Biological agents are usually either bacterial or viral. Biological agents may also produce toxins. Although toxins are not capable of replicating themselves, they are nevertheless poisonous. Botulism, which is produced from the bacterium that grows in improperly handled or prepared meat products, and ricin, which occurs in the seed of the castor oil plant, are examples of virulent toxins. Toxins also occur everywhere in nature, for example, the venom of a spider or a snake.

Accordingly, the negotiators of the convention prohibited the production and use of biological agents by reference to the purpose or intent of the producer or user. The prohibition laid down therefore extends to all biological agents and toxins unless they are intended for peaceful purposes and unless their types and quantities are consistent with such purposes. The main provisions of the convention are as follows: Article I defines the scope of the convention's prohibition, the so-called general purpose criterion. This includes all microbiobrial and other biological agents or toxins and their means of delivery. Subsequent review conferences have reaffirmed that the general purpose criterion encompasses all future scientific and technological developments relevant to the convention. Biological agents and toxins themselves are not prohibited; only their purpose is.

Article II requires each state party, no later than nine months after entry into force of the convention, to destroy or divert to peaceful purposes all agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery prohibited by Article I. Article III prohibits states parties from transferring or otherwise encouraging other states or organisations to acquire any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment or means of delivery prohibited by Article I. Article IV requires states parties to take any necessary national measures to prohibit and prevent the misuse of biological agents, toxins, weapons, equipment and means of delivery within their territories. This will require states parties to adopt or adapt policies and domestic laws where necessary.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 is a measure adopted by the Security Council under chapter VII of the UN charter to maintain or restore international peace and security and is binding on all member states of the UN. The resolution affirms that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Its purpose is to supplement the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions and its focus is, in particular, the risk posed by non-state actors, including terrorists, of acquiring and using nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, their means of delivery and related materials. To assist the Security Council in monitoring implementation of the resolution, the council established the 1540 committee. The 1540 committee, to which states are required to make regular reports on implementation, maintains regular contact and dialogue with all UN member states, including Ireland. The resolution sets out a number of distinct areas in which states are required to take action to prohibit and prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. In particular, states are required to adopt what is termed "appropriate effective laws that prohibit any non-state actor to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use" this range of weaponry.

To better co-ordinate implementation of all relevant international obligations by Departments and State agencies in Ireland, the Government established the interdepartmental committee on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in January 2010. The committee is responsible for co-ordinating implementation of the State's obligations arising under international conventions, UNSCR, European Union law and various policy frameworks. These obligations include those arising under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The interdepartmental committee also addresses other issues in the non-proliferation area, as necessary. It is chaired by a senior officer in my Department and, in the case of matters relating to export control regimes falling under its remit, by an official of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation. The Departments of Defence, Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Health and Children, and Justice and Law Reform, as well as the Defence Forces, Garda Síochána, Revenue Commissioners, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, the Health and Safety Authority and various other agencies are also involved.

Ireland ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1972. At that time, the view was taken that the obligations assumed by the State under the convention, in particular the obligation under Article IV "to take any necessary measures to prohibit and prevent the development, production, stockpiling, acquisition, or retention" of weapons was adequately provided for under existing domestic law, principally the Firearms Acts. However, following a review of the law carried out in the context of Ireland's participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative and, subsequently, the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1540, it has been decided to create specific biological weapons offences. This will remove any doubt regarding the feasibility of future prosecutions of persons for activities involving biological weapons. There is extensive provision in law relating to chemical weapons and nuclear materials, in particular the 1997 Chemical Weapons Act, the Radiological Protection Acts and the Containment of Nuclear Weapons Act 2003.

Biological agents occur widely in the natural environment. Many of them are harmless but others have the potential to cause ill-health. There are also workplaces, such as laboratories, where work involving biological agents is carried on intentionally and for perfectly legitimate purposes.

A considerable body of law sets out the minimum requirements for the protection of workers from the health risks associated with biological agents in the workplace. This is to be found in EU bio-safety law, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work (Biological Agents) Regulations 1994, as amended.

The Bill before the House will not affect in any way legitimate activities involving the intentional or coincidental production or use of biological agents. On the contrary, the Bill will apply only to activities whose purposes are hostile. It will expressly prohibit, among other acts, the production, acquisition, possession, development, transport, transfer or use of biological weapons as required by the terms of the 1925 Geneva Protocol on Poisonous Gases, the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and Resolution 1540.

Section 1 of the Bill defines a number of key terms in the Bill, in particular the terms "hostile purpose" and "prohibited weapon". Section 2 makes it an offence to develop, produce or use a biological agent or toxin for a hostile purpose, or to stockpile, acquire, possess, retain — Deputy Higgins will be interested in this — or transfer to another purpose a biological agent or toxin for a hostile purpose. It also makes it an offence to develop, produce, use, stockpile, acquire, possess, retain or transfer to another purpose a prohibited weapon. It will also be an offence to attempt to do any of these things. In other words, it would be an offence to attempt to transfer such a weapon through our national territory.

Section 3 creates offences of prohibited acts when committed outside the State in specific circumstances, when committed on ships and aircraft registered in Ireland, or by members of the Defence Forces, citizens of Ireland or an Irish body corporate.

Section 4 sets out the penalties to which a person guilty of an offence under sections 2 or 3 will be liable. The maximum penalty, on summary conviction, will be imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of €5,000, or both. For conviction on indictment, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment, a fine or both, a potentially very severe penalty that reflects the seriousness of the offence.

Section 5 is a standard provision dealing with evidence of an accused person's Irish citizenship. Section 6 is also a standard provision that prevents a person being prosecuted in Ireland in respect of an offence for which they have already been tried in another country.

Sections 7 and 8 provide that where a person develops, produces, uses, stockpiles, acquires, possesses, retains or transfers to another person a microbial or other biological agent, or toxin, in prescribed circumstances, there is a presumption that he or she has intended to do so for a purpose prohibited by the convention unless there is a reasonable doubt. Section 9 is a standard provision to ensure that bodies corporate do not avoid responsibility for conduct prohibited to individuals.

Section 10 provides that anything seized and retained in relation to a conviction under the Act may be forfeited to the State and shall be disposed of as the Minister may direct. This provision is necessary to ensure that material seized during the investigation of a suspected offence is not returned to a claimant under the Police (Property) Act 1897 but is sent for destruction. Section 11 sets out the procedure for forfeiture of any biological agent or toxin regardless of whether a conviction has been secured in a given case. Section 12 provides for forfeiture of related fixtures, such as buildings used for the purposes of producing a biological weapon.

Ireland has been, for many years, a leading advocate for greater international co-operation in the fields of disarmament and arms control. In my view, there are more than sufficient ways of causing harm to a human being than people investing their time, energy and ingenuity in the development of newer, more deadly weaponry. Ireland has played a leading role in particular in efforts to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and, most recently, in efforts to prohibit cluster munitions. It is important, therefore, that where we develop international commitments in these areas we also ensure that proper provision is made for them, where necessary, in our own domestic law. When possible gaps are identified, such as in the current case, it is just as important that we move to fill them. For this reason I commend this Bill to the House and I look forward to the contributions from Deputies.

One of the main foreign policy commitments of the Fine Gael Party is to the vigorous pursuit of the goal of universal nuclear and biological disarmament. For that reason, this legislation is entirely in keeping with this policy and commitment and Fine Gael will be supporting the Bill to ensure its passage without delay.

In the past 20 years there has been a fundamental change in relationships in Europe and the world. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact have changed completely the context of Ireland's neutrality. In today's world, many of the threats faced by societies and states are not from each other but from armed groups and fundamentalist militants seeking to destroy the properties and lives of citizens. In light of these threats, it is important, therefore, for Ireland not to stand still by applying a 20th century form of neutrality to a 21st century world with 21st century problems. We must be to the forefront in the design of a common EU security and defence system in order to face new threats to world peace and international law. Our neutrality needs to evolve to take into account these changes. Fine Gael believes it would be a tragic mistake for Ireland not to seek to influence the European security system in the future. We should not only be part of the European security and defence architecture but we should be one of the architects helping to design these systems to meet our needs and our view of Europe's needs.

Fine Gael wants any common security and defence system to be guided by our five main principles: to adhere to the fundamental principles of the United Nations; the pursuit of universal nuclear and biological disarmament; and the commitment to providing peacekeeping and peace-making operations. Ireland can be very proud in this regard and should always ensure it partakes in peacekeeping missions and peace-making operations. In recent years, with the exception of Chad, our Defence Forces missions abroad have decreased and this is regrettable. We should avail of every opportunity to ensure the Defence Forces are available for missions of peacekeeping or peace-making. I hope this Government will pursue every opportunity in that regard.

I commend the ongoing work of the Defence Forces Military College at the Curragh. This is regarded as a college of excellence for teaching peacekeeping methods which have been evolved over many foreign operations.

When I was Minister for Defence, I was visited by the United States military attaché. He asked my permission to recommend to his superiors that some of their key personnel be sent to the Curragh college to learn peacekeeping methods. He openly admitted to me that they knew nothing about peacekeeping. They had the most modern weapons in the world and they trained their forces in the use of these weapons but when it came to peacekeeping, they knew nothing. I thought this was a very open admission on the part of a senior military person. I invited him to participate in any activities in the Curragh college. This illustrates that a small country such as Ireland can influence so much in the world, especially in the area of foreign policy. We do not have any baggage and we are respected. It is important that we never lose the talent we have for peacekeeping.

The fourth principle is to respect the right of other EU states to enter other military alliances or to remain neutral, as they choose. The fifth principle is the right of Ireland to opt in and out of aspects of a mutual defence and security system on a case-by-case basis. In order to ensure these five principles enshrined in a European security and defence policy, we must be prepared at all times to engage fully in any discussions leading up to the adoption of any such policy.

Regarding the legislation before us, my information is not quite in accordance with the statement of the Minister of State. I understood there were 159 state parties and 15 signatory states to the biological weapons convention but I bow to the knowledge of the Department of Foreign Affairs in that regard. I note that the convention was opened for signature in 1972 and came into force in 1975.

It was the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning an entire category of weapons. It effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, retention, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons. Although it had a turbulent operational history, the convention is commonly hailed for establishing a fundamental international law norm that the hostile use of disease is repugnant to mankind. I fully support this.

While establishing a broad norm of international repugnance for biological warfare, securing agreement on how to monitor and enforce compliance with the convention's articles has proven difficult. The biological weapons convention state parties have the right to request a formal investigation through the UN Security Council if they believe another state has violated the convention. However, to date no state party has ever used this vehicle to lodge a complaint. The reluctance to use the Security Council mechanism has often been ascribed to the highly political nature of an accusation made in the UN. This is a sad reflection on the UN Security Council. There are five permanent members and in today's world, it strikes me that the provision is out of date. There is a lack of trust and some decisions taken at Security Council level are guided by political influences of a particular member state.

The UN Security Council is vital in the architecture of peace maintenance and world order. As with this House, it should look at itself and consider re-organising. The UN is an important body and is the only building in which various nations, which may be at loggerheads with each other on various issues, assemble and we should let nothing damage the principle of the institution. Sometimes one must examine how it does its business. It has suffered over the past number of years, perhaps because of the failure to fund it properly. Accusations of wasting public moneys and other issues have damaged its reputation for administration functions. That is not to say that the principle should not be protected. As a small country within the EU, Ireland should use its influence to open a discussion and debate within the EU on whether it is time for the EU to make proposals on the reform of the UN. A body such as the EU should have a place on the Security Council structure in a reformed system.

Perhaps the Security Council is expected to deal with too many matters. One of the most important issues today is the world response to national tragedies. The most recent was that of Pakistan. Our ability to organise ourselves to come to the rescue of states that suffer these tragedy, such as Haiti and Pakistan, leaves a lot to be desired. Our failure to involve ourselves quickly on a humanitarian basis only benefits the likes of the Taliban and fundamentalist groups. It gives them an opportunity to promote their wares. It is vital importance that we are willing and able to come to the aid of nations struggling with a major tragedy. It is vitally important we look at our procedures to see how we can reform matters.

The biological weapons convention has accrued a certain degree of notoriety for the regularity with which it was breached and the weak alternative arbitration matters incorporated in the convention. We should be aware of that. Perhaps the Minister of State can guide me in his response. I am not aware of how one goes about changing a convention. Perhaps it requires a new convention to replace the existing convention. Some 30 years have passed since this convention was established and, as with everything else, time moves on. Provision is made for a review every five years.

We could have a new protocol.

We should avail of the five-year reviews to examine how the convention is working in new circumstances, how it can be improved and how we can attract new states to signing up to the principles of the convention. A group has been established within the Department, involving other State agencies and Departments, to examine these conventions. I welcome that participation. It is important that this structure produces proposals so that the political systems and Ministers can propose amendments to existing conventions or propose new conventions. I am highlighting the benefit of Ireland, as a small country in the EU that has proven its ability to punch above its weight and that is listened to, using its influence and membership to propose ideas to improve matters. Thankfully, we do not have a vested interest in this area.

While the Bill has extra-territorial application to citizens, members of the Defence Forces and Irish registered aeroplanes and ships, it expressly precludes the transportation of biological warfare materials through Irish airspace. The weakness of this Bill is that it does not amount to a ban on transshipment or provide greater search and prosecution powers to those who may suspect biological weapons are being moved through Irish airspace or ports. This is a weakness I intend to raise on Committee Stage. I hope that something can be done about this through this debate. We often ignore the fact that our air space can be used for things with which we as a country do not agree. Therefore, we should make certain that we do not allow others to use it in such a way. I look forward to discussing that point further on Committee Stage to see whether there is anything we can do in that regard.

This is the type of legislation on which one could speak for a long time. Many of the points I wish to make, over and above what I have said, have been outlined by the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. I do not intend to delay the House by repeating what he has said.

Membership of the European Union is important. Thank goodness the modern generation in this country is moving on and that we are now in a position where we can think outside the box. As I said at the outset we should concentrate on how we can play a major role within the European Union in terms of foreign policy, security and defence and especially in the area of peacekeeping and peacemaking. We should avail of any opportunity through our membership of the European Union to improve on this or other conventions.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the legislation. I look forward to perhaps trying to improve it, if that is possible. On the question of transshipment I raised earlier, I look forward to seeing if a provision on this can be included in the Bill on Committee Stage.

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil seans agam an reachtaíocht thábhachtach seo a phlé. Tá clú mhuintir na hÉireann agus Rialtas na hÉireann ag feabhsú toisc go bhfuil reachtaíocht den leithéid seo á thabhairt isteach againn. I very much welcome the legislation. The Labour Party sees it as part of an ethical foreign policy and for that reason we support it, as we did taking a strong position on cluster munitions and, prior to that, landmines legislation. I am grateful for the Minister of State's detailed speech. I wish to make a number of points which I hope will be of assistance. As the previous speaker said, there are points to which we may return on Committee Stage.

The first thing that is important is the status of the convention itself. The Minister of State in his speech placed the Bill alongside other legislation which seeks to vindicate the ban on cluster munitions and the ban on landmines. It is not pedantic to say that the introduction to the Minister of State's speech suggests that this legislation will give further effect to the 1972 convention. With respect — I will not go into it now — I suggest that this is a flourish because I am not aware of previous legislation that addressed the 1972 convention except indirectly. It has not been addressed by way of direct legislative reference. That is a very minor point in the context of welcoming the Bill. It is a point to which I will return.

One of the difficulties for the public understanding of the Bill is that people are rightly proud of this country's role in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was a very fine moment in Irish diplomacy and activity and it is rightly recorded as such. However, one of the difficulties about the convention, which also arises in terms of the biological weapons convention, is the atmosphere of bad faith among some of the signatory nations. The problem arose with the nuclear ban, for example, that the signatories under major sections of the treaty were required to destroy nuclear weapons but they did not do so. They also happened to be permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. One was left, in the most troublesome days of the reviews that took place every five years of the non-proliferation treaty, with the fact that the treaty was now concerned with proliferation only and not with the elimination of nuclear weapons. It is equally the case in regard to the biological weapons convention that some of the signatories are in possession of biological weapons but they are not destroying them. Therefore, the concentration in the previous reviews of the biological weapons convention has once again retreated to proliferation and non-proliferation.

That is a significant point for the public to understand, that international law is weakened when in fact the most powerful and also the most permanent members of the Security Council do not feel bound by the full text of the convention in terms of getting rid of those kind of weapons, but that the convention is for lesser and newer players. I make this fundamental point because when I make proposals to the Labour Party on foreign policy I have placed the emphasis on it being an ethical foreign policy. I have a real problem with the diplomatic interpretation of obligation. That is a point to which I will return.

Another issue that arises is that not only have some countries been in possession of those weapons but they have used them. Again, that has become a matter of contention in regard to detail. I accept the reports that indicate a considerable volume of weapons being held by Russia, for example, a signatory nation, that might have been used in Chechnya. I am sure they were used in Fallujah in the last Iraq war. That raised a significant issue to which I will return in the context of the Bill, namely, whether the possession of biological weapons will be an offence under the legislation. I would like clarification on the issue.

This also arises in regard to another matter that is very important on transmission. Is the possession of the weapons themselves now an offence because one could qualify that by saying the possession of biological weapons for a hostile purpose is the offence? Again, one might also say that if one is trying to establish the facts on why a biological weapon is in the possession of a person does one have the right to seize it. Having seized it, does the person apprehended have to establish possession of it for a non-hostile purpose? All of those issues remain for clarification in the text of the Bill.

I welcome the extra-territorial reach of the Bill, which is very good. On the question of compliance, the Minister of State correctly outlined how the Bill fits in with other legislation. Later in the Minister of State's speech, he mentioned the existence of an interdepartmental committee. It would be valuable when he is replying on the legislation if he gave some details of the national compliance mechanism. I cannot see the detail of that in the legislation or in his speech, although I may have missed it. Will the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation have responsibility for chemical matters, while the National Radiological Protection Agency will be responsible for nuclear matters? This is an issue that can be clarified as we move on, I prefer to concentrate on the broad features of the Bill on Second Stage.

The use of Irish airspace is interesting. In February 2010, on the Order of Business one day I asked about the Air Navigation Acts 1978 and 1988. In response to my Bill, which would have changed the provisions for the transmission of materials through Irish airspace and would have allowed for the boarding of aircraft if there were suspicions, the Government stated that it would prepare its own legislation and that it had appointed a subcommittee of the Cabinet to that end. When I last investigated this, I found its last meeting was in 2009. As Deputy Barrett said, we should mention transmission through Irish airspace, but this Bill falls short of including new rights of surveillance and establishing of fact.

We were brought all round the bushes about Shannon Airport being used at the time of the Iraq war. The onus was placed on the civilian to establish that there was something offensive on board an aircraft. I met two senior gardaí who suggested the legislation involved was that covering defence of the right of entry to one's home. We left that aside and I then went back to the Air Navigations Acts 1978 and 1988 but there was no capacity to establish a matter of public concern. This also arose during the Council of Europe investigation and the investigation by the subcommittee of the European Parliament. We completed a questionnaire that we sent back to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in which we referred to the legal capacities of our legislation but we omitted to say that we had decided not to use them. Even if we had, would they have been sufficient? This should have been an opportunity to address the issue of air transport and the right of surveillance.

The Minister of State may be tempted to reply but I urge him to resist the temptation and look at the text of the Bill. It goes a certain way, referring to the offence of possession and to transmission. It also has extra-territorial application to citizens, members of the Defence Forces and to Irish registered planes and ships, and expressly prohibits the transportation of biological warfare materials through Irish airspace. It makes the possession of a biological weapon or agent a criminal offence, although I have raised issues of interpretation of that related to intention, which we might tease out on Committee Stage.

The Bill makes the possession of a biological weapon or agent a criminal offence, which could implicate individuals of whatever nationality who are in possession of biological weapons on planes parked on an Irish apron. That is stronger than section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act but it does not amount to a stronger ban on transshipment or provide greater search and prosecutorial powers to those who may suspect that biological weapons are being moved through Irish airspace or ports. Put simply, civilians are still as impotent in this as they were before and when the issue arose of the appalling extra-legal abuse of international law that was the Iraq war.

The way out of this would have been to include an agreed passage that came out of the Cabinet subcommittee on the Air Navigation Acts 1978 and 1988. I am not drafting the legislation; perhaps there is other legislation that could be amended.

I turn to the international atmosphere in which this convention is being discussed. We must make our gains in an atmosphere of bad faith and the abuse of position by some of the major power holders, particularly at Security Council level. We should not regard this as anything other than abuse of international law and influence within diplomacy. I had the greatest sympathy for those Irish personnel who have been going to the review committees on the convention. I must restrain myself from getting sidetracked into the serious weaknesses in the non-proliferation treaty and the US-India agreement on nuclear weapons. It completely discredited the powerful work by the New Agenda Group. Ireland had to undertake a diplomatic flurry to justify its being the second last country standing before it was forced to capitulate.

Since 1991, the verification procedures for the biological weapons convention have included the use a panel of experts. This mechanism of verification is not very satisfactory. Fallujah is an example of the abuse of chemical weapons. The law was confused when people claimed such weapons could be used if they were necessary part of a retreat from a conflict area. Another argument was made that if care had been taken to remove civilians from an area, anyone who remained was a combatant. There was also the question of particular flares being used for destruction instead of for the clarification of a conflict zone. At the end of the day, the thing that mattered was the damage done to people. Where biological weapons are concerned, a number of important medical bodies, including an authoritative group from Canada, have investigated the effects on children in southern Iraq of weapons that might have been used as biological weapons.

Deputy Barrett referred to an interesting matter, namely, that the mechanism through which countries may make a formal complaint has not been used. It does not serve the Security Council's mechanisms well if major countries produce lists of allegations against countries they believe are in breach, yet do not follow up with formal complaints. The Minister of State might help me if he has been advised, since I suspect a trade off is involved. A permanent member of the Security Council that publishes a list from its domestic department will not make a formal complaint in the full knowledge that another permanent member will take the exact same road. In turn, this trade off undermines the compliance mechanisms at international level.

Another matter arises in this respect, namely, the interesting question of how compliance is managed internationally. The Minister of State might address it. He stated, "The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention prohibits the use, production, development, stockpiling and transfer of biological weapons, extensively supplementing the 1925 protocol in so far as it applies to biological weapons." He also stated, "The Biological Weapons Bill will create specific offences relating to the use, production and possession of biological weapons." How will the compliance mechanism work at home and internationally?

The Minister of State referred to something about which I am unsure. He stated:

Today, no state acknowledges that it possesses biological weapons or that it has a programme to develop such weapons. The stigma attached to the use of such weapons and their prohibition under the convention have been strong deterrents. This has not, however, completely allayed concerns with regard to bio-weapon development by states. For instance, it was alleged in the early 1990s, by Soviet defectors, that the former Soviet Union had conducted a vast, clandestine biological weapons programme. Iraq, also a party to the convention, was found in 1995 to have had a considerable undeclared biological warfare programme.

I hope the Minister of State does not take what I say personally, but this is a selective set of quotations. One needs to take care when ascribing substance to the question of the allegations of Soviet defectors in the early 1990s. I am familiar with the case. The question of Iraq relates to the question of inspections and so on. What was far more dangerous was the destruction of parliamentary credibility by those who made false allegations, not only about biological weapons, but about weapons of mass destruction in general.

I wish to make an interesting comment lest I forget. I was invited to visit the head office of one of the major embassies on Mespil Road with a number of other Deputies, including the late Tony Gregory. We were shown a file produced in London that contained what were supposed to be aerial photographs of weapons of mass destruction on the move in Iraq. One looked like a photograph of an articulated truck but was described to all of us present as being a chemical laboratory on the move. To my horror I saw the same file in the hands of Colin Powell at the United Nations Security Council. He read out that rubbish.

While I welcome this legislation, if we are to have respect at home and internationally for wonderful conventions that seek to preserve humanity, the fact that such investigation and compliance mechanisms could be degraded so comprehensively by the abuse of alleged intelligence sources in parliament by a prime minister, as unfortunately occurred in the UK's case with tragic consequences for individuals and the parliamentary process, does not help the law, politics or the peaceful thrust of the conventions that have their origins in the UN. It is the best prospect we have of being a forum to advance peace.

The Minister of State referred to a matter I have addressed when he stated, "The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention is a hybrid instrument of international humanitarian law and disarmament and non-proliferation". When he replies, he might say whether this is an opportunity to examine how we might be innovative in terms of implementation and compliance mechanisms, taking into the account the successes and setbacks experienced in the other parts of the hybrid.

The question of whether review conferences are to rely on the verification mechanisms to which I referred is interesting. The Minister of State might have anticipated another point following the production of my Private Members' Bill some time ago. Working as I was with the limited resources available to me, I concentrated on the right of citizens to answer a concern. I was not referring to putting together a maverick group, as it was described, that could ask to go aboard every aeroplane that landed. Rather, this would have occurred only where a concern had been well established internationally. In the case of Shannon Airport, we had in mind flight plans and other matters that were of concern to the most responsible groups in different countries. However, we found ourselves obstructed in every way. A greater impetus might have been given to national legislation after the last review conference in 2006. I am not familiar with the debate which took place then but I understand that at that conference national governments were urged to bring forward national legislation of compliance.

The Deputy has two minutes remaining.

In that two minutes I shall return to an old theme that arises on occasions like this, namely, the famous United Nations Security Council Resolution 15/40 of 2004, which is referred to in the Minister of State's speech. This was an interesting measure and I point out with some humility to the Minister of State and his officials that this resolution was brought in as a Chapter 7 resolution under the United Nations Charter. What is attempted in some of the text of the resolution does not necessarily benefit from the context in which Chapter 7 was invoked. I state this very seriously. I welcome the linking of the biological weapons convention to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the general intention but it is rather sad that Resolution 15/40 of 2004 was itself so abused as to provide a cover for actions that were neither in compliance with the United Nations Charter nor with any fundamental principles of international law.

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome this Bill to which we will be very happy to propose amendments on Committee State. I also pay tribute to the Minister of State and his staff for adding this Bill to the Cluster Munitions Bill and others. Without doubt, these are very significant enhancements of Ireland's reputation abroad.

I understand Deputy Mary Upton is sharing her time.

Yes, with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Both Deputies have ten minutes.

I shall probably need less. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill to which I wish to take a different view, namely, one that relates more to its scientific and biological aspects. Deputy Higgins covered many of the international legislative aspects which are clearly the basis on which the Bill is predicated.

This is an area for which it is difficult to legislate because of the very nature of the biological agents involved. While many of the agents we know are positive, productive and useful, depending on the environment and the way in which they are produced, their potential for harm is enormous. Many of the biological agents, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how they are used and applied, have the capacity for mutation. This is particularly the case for bacteria and viruses and is something over which we many have little control scientifically because natural mutations may occur to allow the agent to evolve into something significantly more toxic or dangerous than we had anticipated. Against that background, those kinds of agents are clearly much more difficult to legislate for and to predict what might happen in their regard.

It is also true that, on a relative scale, looking at the agents from the point of view of warfare, they are cheap to develop and easy to hide. However, it is not always easy to deliver the agent; there can be difficulties. Their production is simple. A very modest laboratory and a small amount of equipment and, in many cases, relatively little expertise in many areas can allow for the production of these agents. These are the kinds of issues that make it difficult to deal with them.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Roche stated, there is potential for good, too, in biological agents of this kind and it is against that background I wish to speak. All of us would acknowledge that without the development of good scientific research over many years good vaccines would not be available to us. In the production of such vaccines, however, organisms are developed that have the potential to be misused, abused and used very destructively. I offer the example of the botulinum toxin which was mentioned by the Minister of State. People will be very familiar with it. Potentially, it is hugely damaging and very small amounts of it are extremely toxic. However, minute amounts are used also as botox. I do not know whether that is quite the balance I would like to make in that argument but some people might be interested to remember it has potential positive uses.

My reason for speaking on this Bill relates to scientific development and research. This is always ongoing and will evolve all the time. We have seen that in regard to illegal drugs and their detection, for example, where it is so difficult to stay one step ahead. Very often we are one step behind those who have the capacity, supports and technology to develop such agents. The same will always be true of biological agents that can be used negatively. For that reason, we still need to ensure we have good scientific expertise that allows us to be able to detect, manage and control such agents. I say that against a background of scientific research. That aspect is very important.

I fully accept the need for the protocols and procedures that should be in place to ensure there are no hazardous outcomes, with people deliberately mishandling or misappropriating such agents. They can be targeted against humans, animals or crops and this has happened. The Minister of State mentioned this and Deputy Higgins also pointed out that these agents can be used in a number of different ways with different outcomes. One can decide to destroy a food source for a country, for example. There is plenty of historical evidence for this.

The entire area of bio-security must be borne in mind. Such legislation is not specific to this document and there is European law concerning bio-security and bio-safety. We must keep that in mind at all times. Clearly, the greater the international co-operation the better are our chances of reaching agreements and on that basis this legislation is important. On those grounds I welcome the Bill.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Cuirfidh sé leis an raon reachtaíochta atá againn sa Teach seo atá ag seasamh lenár ndualgais idirnáisiúnta maidir le huirlisí atá á gcoigilt go hidirnáisiúnta chun úsáid i gcogaí difriúla. Cheana féin, tá an Dáil seo tar éis reachtaíocht a rith maidir le cluster munitions agus a leithéid. Chuireamar fáilte roimhe sin ag an am agus cuirfidh an Bille seo leis sin.

An chúis leis an mBille seo ná go gcinnteofar nach mbeidh armlón cogaíochta bitheolaíoch á chruthú, á fhorbairt, á dhíol nó fiú i seilbh duine ar bith ar an oileán seo. Glacfaidh gach duine leis an tábhacht a bhaineann leis an reachtaíocht seo. Tá rudaí, mar a dúirt Teachtaí romham, gur gá dúinn a dhéanamh go fóill in ainneoin an Bhille seo agus ba chóir go nglacfadh an tAire le roinnt de na moltaí atá luaite cheana ag an Teachta Michael D. Higgins go háirithe. Seasaim leis an chuid is mó atá ráite aige agus is cóir don Aire éisteacht leis an méid a dúirt sé mar tá easpa sa Bhille fós.

The aim of the Biological Weapons Bill is to prohibit the use, development, production, manufacture, possession, stockpiling, acquisition and retention or transfer of biological weapons and, as such, it is a welcome development. It sets a standard that one hopes many countries around the world can reach. That is where Ireland should be in the world, setting standards albeit standards that do not impact greatly on this country. We are not producers of biological weapons and to my knowledge we have not used or sold them. However, countries close to us have been involved in such production.

Countries close to us that are regarded as friends of Ireland have been involved in this trade. Therefore the ban we are introducing in this Bill is to be welcomed. It is welcome as a statement to the world that Ireland is not willing to stand over the continued production and sale of such weapons.

That was the same intention when we dealt with the cluster munitions and a number of other Bills in recent years. Ireland should try to set the standard and bring other countries along with us, by virtue of our arguments to persuade other states to end production and destroy any stockpiling of such weapons that exist. The creation and stockpiling of biological weapons was outlawed in 1972 under the biological weapons convention. This was signed by 159 state parties and there were 15 signatory states involved. Given Ireland's neutral stance we signed it in 1972, but clearly any attempts to ban the use of such abhorrent weapons, aimed as they are at civilians — or even military targets — must be continuously supported.

However, ever since the passing of that convention in 1972, states have continued to produce, research and stockpile such weapons. We have all seen the consequences of a biological weapon that was produced in the 1940s. God knows how much further ahead military scientists have now got in their development of the technology as regards biological weapons. We saw the consequences of mustard gas being used against the Kurdish population in Iraq and the horrendous photographs of young children and adults all suffering from the effects of a gas produced by the so-called allies in the Second World War. This was then sold or given, for whatever purpose, to the Iraqi regime. It was madness that such weapons were not destroyed at end of the Second World War and hopefully, that climate of militarism which slowed the world down in many senses during the Cold War era has ended, where two competing blocs spent a fortune in creating the most destructive possible weapons while people starved around the world.

Hopefully we are moving towards a different climate in the world, but I have my doubts, given what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent times. The development of such technology occurs in secret and we have to live with the expressed statements of countries such as the United States, Russia, France, Germany and Britain to the effect that they are no longer involved in the production or even research involving such weapons. Time will tell and hopefully we can take them at their word. I am sceptical, however.

Having said that, the effect of this Bill is to ensure that in the future Ireland, at the very least, can say we took steps to ensure we played no hand, act or part in any of the activities relating to this and that we did our best to ensure that this trade and its related production did not happen, not just here in Ireland but beyond our shores. One of the welcome parts of the Bill is that it provides for the ability to prosecute citizens who have been involved in any way with this abhorrent trade.

One concern I have is that the Bill does not expressly prohibit the transfer of biological warfare materials through Irish airspace. This point was highlighted by Deputy Higgins, and given our recent history and the enormous controversy as regards the Government allowing US war planes to refuel at Shannon en route to war theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is a missed opportunity if the legislation is not amended as appropriate, so that we might prevent Ireland being dragged into conflicts involving biological weapons in the future. We should therefore change the legislation to prohibit biological weapons being transported through Irish airspace.

This needs to be coupled with a beefed up inspections regime at Shannon Airport, or any Irish airport used by the US or any other state's military force. Such an inspections regime must also cover suspicious transfers of goods from companies that may be highlighted by the UN or whatever and that may be involved in the production of such weapons. As Deputy Higgins indicated, we had a debate with An Garda Síochána around Shannon Airport. It was not satisfactory and the political policy was effectively not to interfere in case Shannon Airport ended up closing because of the enormous wealth that US troops and their planes mean for the airport. It is a sad day when an airport is dependent on an evil trade in renditions. The Minister at the time with whom we argued, in particular, was former Deputy Michael McDowell, and he was wrong. The Garda, when suspicions arise, must act when supplied with information and not have to wait until the case is proven by a citizen. That is what I and Deputy Higgins were asked to do, as well as many others who had formed suspicions.

I did not have the power to board an aeroplane at Shannon Airport, inspect the cargo and then inform the Garda that I believed this or that was the product on board. That was wrong then, it is wrong now and it means we need to ensure that when a suspicion is formed it is acted upon rather than when the proof is given. That means a message is being sent out to every country to the effect that Irish airspace and Irish airports do not welcome this. In the event of our having such suspicious we must insist on the right to investigate and prosecute accordingly under this legislation.

Questions have not been answered in regard to extraordinary rendition and there are still many questions the Government needs to address in that regard. We may never know the answers but we know that the Guantanamo detention centre to where many unfortunates were transported through Irish airspace is still open. I do not believe that the Government has salved its conscience in regard to Guantanamo Bay. Ireland needs to do a good deal more. I welcome the fact, however, that we have taken some of the detainees who were in Guantanamo Bay and allowed them to resettle in Ireland because of the threatened dangers to them if they returned to their native countries. We should set an example and take a few more, while calling on other countries to do likewise. Ireland should be an example to the rest of the world and show we will not stand for this. In particular, the United States needs to a good deal more and quickly.

The Bill makes the possession of biological weapons or agents a criminal offence, thus implicating any individual, whatever his or her nationality, who is in possession of such materials, for example on a an aeroplane parked at an Irish airport.

Despite this welcome development, the Bill unfortunately does not provide greater search and prosecution powers to those who may suspect that biological weapons are being moved through Irish airspace. Given the reluctance of the Irish authorities to search US planes in the past, I do not know how useful this provision will be if we do not have the courage to act on it.

One of the welcome provisions of this Bill is that relating to dual-use materials. This is crucial in that it criminalises not only those who use materials in their weaponised form but also those who seek to develop and produce materials in laboratories with hostile purpose. This applies particularly to dual-use materials which may have a civilian purpose as well as a hostile purpose. I am not sure whether the civilian use of Botox is beneficial — the jury is out on that, but we will know in the future. Any development that seeks to criminalise those who use their scientific knowledge for such hostile purposes under the false cover of a civilian purpose is welcome.

Another issue with the Bill is the legal test for ascertaining whether agents or toxins are being developed, produced or used for a hostile purpose. The effect of sections 7 and 8 is to create a presumption that materials are for a hostile purpose and to place the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the prosecution. This approach is interesting but there is a danger associated with it. I ask the Minister to elaborate further on this on Committee Stage. The Bills Digest mentions a case in the UK, R. v. Kebilene, in whose judgment it was stated: “[I]n the context of a serious offence such as terrorism, a reverse burden of proof provision on a matter central to the wrongdoing alleged against the defendant would breach article 6.2 of the European Convention of Human Rights”. In view of the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights is now on a statutory footing in Ireland following the passage of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, this should be given further consideration so that the Bill does not fall foul of it in the future, because it is a welcome Bill.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I welcome the fact that there is all-party agreement in this area and I realise that the contributions were made in the spirit of improving the Bill. I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy Ó Snodaigh that even though Ireland is a small country — although, as Deputy Barrett said, we often punch above our weight — and even though issues may not arise in terms of what goes on within our nation, we do have some responsibility to show the way. I welcome the contributions that recognised this.

I am grateful to Deputy Barrett for the positive way in which he kicked off. He is correct in stating that neutrality confers obligations on us. We cannot stand idly by and allow bestial and horrific things to happen elsewhere without somehow being morally responsible for them. We may not be instrumental in the horrors but we have a responsibility to call a halt. The Deputy was also right in stating that domestic legislation should reflect those moral obligations we assume.

The Deputy also queried the number of signatories to the document. I understand that since the document read by the Deputy was prepared, there have been four additional signatories, which explains the difference.

The Deputy raised an interesting point about the structure of the United Nations. I am one of the few people to stand in this Chamber as an elected representative who worked for a period in the UN, and I agree that it is a far from perfect organisation. There are issues in the UN which undermine and diminish — and may possibly destroy — the institution. That said, it is the best we have, and we should look forward to improving it. The current and previous Secretaries General have spoken about reform, and we should assist them in that.

There is an old saying that in international diplomacy there are interests rather than principles. Certainly, as far as the UN is concerned, there are occasions when crude, narrowly focused, political national interests trump the principles on which the organisation is built. It is an imperfect body, but for all we can detract from it, we should instead assist and build on it. That is Deputy Barrett's view and it is mine too.

Deputies Barrett and Higgins both mentioned the slow pace at which the UN moves. This point was made specifically by Deputy Higgins about negotiations on the verification and compliance protocol. They have taken an extraordinarily long time and collapsed in 2001 after the US Administration withdrew its support. This is a classic example of the point made by Deputy Barrett that the crudest, narrowest political interests of a nation can determine points of principle. This had more to do with the US elections at the time than anything else. Recent efforts to improve compliance have included the establishment of the implementation support unit, based in Geneva, which I mentioned, and a number of other confidence-building measures.

However, the only way to make the UN truly effective in this area is for those countries that are outside the main discussion — one of the great advantages we have is that we are slightly outside on some of these big issues — to point the finger and argue for progress. Since its entry into force in 1975, states parties to the BTWC have striven to implement the convention, and this is something we should look to in the future.

Deputies Barrett, Higgins and Ó Snodaigh mentioned the issue of transport of biological weapons through Ireland. There is domestic legislation, the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, which prohibits foreign military aircraft from flying over or landing in Ireland except by express permission. I realise this is an imperfect instrument, but it is an item of domestic legislation. By way of clarification, it will be an offence within the terms of this legislation to have a biological weapon anywhere in the State, including an airport or a harbour. This provides an answer to the query raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

The surveillance is missing.

The Deputies mentioned inspection; vigilance and surveillance are always issues.

A number of contributors made reference to extra-territorial jurisdiction. This important aspect of the legislation extends the criminal jurisdiction of the State to acts committed outside the State regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. This is only possible in rare cases such as war crimes. My advice is that it is a matter of legal policy. Ireland has only a limited basis for extra-territorial jurisdiction, but the fact that it is referenced here is important.

When Deputy Upton was talking I was struck by the thought that Members of the House are frequently regarded as jacks of all trades and masters of none. I am sorry the Deputy has had to leave because I had intended to pay tribute to the scientific focus she has brought to the House. Her research-based outlook is valuable and she made an interesting contribution. She recognised that there is a difficulty — also mentioned by Deputy Ó Snodaigh — with materials and processes that are used for positive scientific research but that have the potential to be used for negative purposes. She mentioned, in particular, the specific difficulties that arise from the capacity or otherwise of potentially harmless agents to be scaled up to a dangerous level. The Bill makes it clear that a biological weapon is a weaponized biological agent so it does speak to intent, which is the query that Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised. The Bill defines a "prohibited weapon" and the possession of a prohibited weapon as an offence — therefore, weaponising is the issue. Sections 7 and 8 make it clear that the development or manufacture of an otherwise harmless or benign agent to the point of it being a weapon is the issue.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins referred to the horror of the Fallujah incident and Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned the extraordinary madness that informed the giving of either mustard gas or the agents for its creation to the Iraqi regime. The Fallujah incident did concern the use of phosphorus, which is a chemical element in incendiary weapons. Nonetheless I happen to share the view that it was supposedly used to illuminate a battlefield. It is very hard for any human being to stand up with a straight face and say that putting such a weapon into a school illuminated a battlefield. I am very conscious of the contribution made by Mr. John Ging in this case and his bravery and courage.

The Deputy also suggested that the compliance mechanism has been undermined. I have mentioned this already. It has been undermined and it has been undermined regularly in the United Nations by member states trading off. The Deputy is right, I was a critic of the structure of the United Nations. As Deputy Barrett said, surely when we walk into that building in New York, we are all equal, we are not children of a lesser God simply because we come from a nation that has 4 million people, rather than 44 million or 244 million. Citizens live and die in the same way, irrespective of race, colour or creed. Certainly the United Nations and the fact that there is a Security Council arrangement that gives special recognition to individual states is an historic anomaly and an issue that needs to be looked at. Two contributions mentioned that there should be a special position for the European Union. I am not sure there should be a special position for anybody.

Having dealt with Deputy Upton's contribution, I pay a personal tribute to her. She has brought a scientific rigour and interest in research in science into the House which is welcome.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh made a very interesting contribution where he talked about us setting a standard. It may not arise in a practical sense in an Irish context, that is, the manufacture or the weaponising of biological material. The Bill is important in that it makes a statement. I agree with him and the fact that other nations have a responsibility to act in this way is helpful.

I agree very much with the Deputy's contribution, in particular, his reference to the horrors visited on the Kurds in Iraq and the moral responsibility that lies with those political friends of ours who made decisions to thus arm a repugnant regime. There is a moral consequence to every action we take as politicians. Certainly the people who made those decisions did not equip themselves very well.

I will look at any views that come forward on Committee Stage. I am grateful to the Deputies for their very positive contributions.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share