Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 38.
“These agreements about co-operation are agreements between the parties, that is, Canada and the European Union. However, corporations do not sign up to those agreements. Those who will be using the arbitration mechanisms or investor-state dispute mechanisms that will be enforced here have not necessarily signed up to that agenda. Canada and Europe agreeing with each other to do something does not prevent corporations choosing to pursue their own policies as regards their investments or interests.”
“In this regard, what is the objection to including the language that would guarantee that the High Court, not the tribunal itself, would be empowered to consider the public interest in making a decision in relation to enforcement?”
“Nonetheless, in his legislation the Minister of State is giving the prescription in terms of the frame he is choosing to apply in relation to it. What is the objection to the inclusion of the phrase on the material compromise of the public interest? Again, it is a matter of the language on not having a material compromise of the public interest as a determination of the arbitration body, to which it is not bound. This is about the High Court. Why not include the question of what would materially compromise the public interest? The Minister of State was nodding earlier when we were saying the public interest is normally weighed by the High Court in its adjudication.”
“What status does the Minister of State think that aspect, which Senator McDowell has very clearly enumerated and which I agree is likely to be taken up by the ECJ, would have? How would it be balanced out?”
“To clarify, I do not believe the amendment is going narrower; rather, it is trying to add detail. We still have not had an answer as to whether the three instances are included. On the basis of what the Minister of State has said, we are left to interpretation. I wish to ask the Minister of State about the obligations to comply with European law, which we have under our Constitution. If the investment court tribunal and agreement thereon become part of European law, how does the Minister of State envisage this would be balanced against other rulings of the ECJ? Would the High Court be seeking to balance that? How would it bind in terms of a constitutional amendment? How would it bind in terms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?”
“Senator McDowell has very adequately pointed to how such a denial of enforcement would be unlikely to stand up, but that is a separate debate. My question is on the three specific instances. Is it the Minister of State's understanding, under this legislation, that the High Court would be able to deny the enforcement of an award in the three instances?”
“The Minister did not answer the questions. Could he clarify, with a "Yes" or "No", the position on the three instances? I refer to where an award is based on compensation for a measure to ensure the State's compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a measure to ensure the State's compliance with an ECJ ruling, and a measure taken by the State to ensure compliance regarding a public referendum. The Minister of State is defending the investor court system, but what we also have in front of us is what the High Court is going to be empowered to do, or not. Many of our amendments are trying to strengthen the hand of the High Court because it is not very clear that it will have any strong measures or tools in terms of denying enforcement.”
“If the measure for which compensation is being awarded was one required by a referendum of the people, an CJEU judgment or the European Charter of Fundamental Rights under the law will this be enforceable?”
“If there is a ruling by an arbitration body that is related to a measure taken by Ireland to comply with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, a CJEU ruling or a constitutional referendum of our own people - and I am not asking whether it can take such a measure - can the arbitration body state it believes Ireland should pay X compensation to the company that unfairly had its reasonable expectations compromised and was unfairly impacted by that measure? This is how the process works. It can make such an award anyway regardless. We know the arbitration body will not be bound by a referendum of the Irish people, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights or a ruling of the CJEU. If the body makes a ruling will the Irish State enforce it? What are the specific proposals on what constitutes European law and constitutional orders?”
“Even the fact of taking a case may get someone the outcome they want in terms of legislation, whether or not a compensatory award is given. With regard to the question of compromise on public interest, there is no obligation. The arbitration body does not need to weigh up and say it thinks it is for the best. The Minister of State might confirm it does not have to be bound by a national constitutional decision in Ireland or by a decision in the CJEU. They are not binding on an arbitration body in terms of when it makes its adjudication. They may be considered but they are not binding on it. The Minister of State has not addressed, besides talking about Sinn Féin and referendums and trying to drag it back to trade, exactly what is meant by constitutional order or what exactly meant by EU legal autonomy.”
“We look to the examples we gave, and I have given the example of Denmark choosing not to collect a tax because it would be subject to challenge. Germany was told not to collect a tax by the arbitration body that supposedly has no powers over it, pending the outcome of a case. Vermillion, a Canadian company operating in Ireland, took a case against France in relation to its new climate law. That climate law was diluted because of the huge costs attached to it. The then Minister of the environment was very clear on how his ability to deliver a proper climate policy was compromised by the threat and the fact of cases that would be taken with potentially large compensatory measures. We have quoted before the fact that legal firms that advertise to take these cases are clear that laws can be affected.”
“With respect, "materially compromise" is the phrase. There are multiple instances and I gave one. The Minister of State said we are picking and choosing but we could mention lengthy cases that are pertinent because they have the same frames and the same language, and some of the same rules may be applied but we do not have time to quote them all at full length because the Bill is being guillotined. The fact of us giving truncated quotations is entirely a fact of the Government's choice in truncating the debate. The language in amendment No. 12 is "materially compromise". The question is not whether we can bring in a law in. We have said again and again it is a question of whether bringing in laws will be compromised. That concern has been expressed throughout.”
“11 tries to give meaning to these very loose phrases in the Bill, "constitutional order" and "legal autonomy", while amendment No. 12 tries to get to what the public care about and the kinds of concerns that led the Supreme Court to worry about the constitutionality in the first place and to find of favour of then Deputy Costello and the compromising of the public interest. I ask the Minister of State to be clear in supporting these two amendments.”
“The High Court, when it is deciding whether to enforce, according to the legislation, is only bound by very a narrow framework, which is whether it compromises the constitutional order, the fact that we are staying within the Constitution or the legal autonomy of the European Union. It is not being asked to do what it normally does, which is to consider the public interest. That is why amendment No. 12 is important. It would put the public interest among the factors the High Court should consider when deciding whether it should be enforcing a ruling from these courts, which operate in their separate space. It would have to weigh the public interest and all the facets that go with that alongside a consideration of the constitutional order and questions of EU law. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are constructive. Amendment No.”
“The actual thing the public cares about when they hear this and the fear that they have is in no way addressed by the language of the Bill. I have said that the arbitration bodies do not have to balance out EU law, constitutional law and everything else. It is almost a simple law of tort. They are literally in that one space and very often come from that frame in their adjudications. A High Court would normally be provide a balance that considers the public interest. It would be in the mix. The public interest is not in the mix for the arbitration bodies. It is not in the mix for the arbitration bodies that are making the decision. They are not bound by the public interest, the European Court of Justice or national laws at any level.”
“Regarding the points which Senator McDowell very ably made, if we agree voluntarily to make ourselves subject to these rulings, then the choice in terms of surrendering sovereignty has already been made. We have chosen to say we want to be subject to these arbitration rulings. That is then going to be stacked by a court. Leaving aside the fact that this supposed fix to the concerns the public had is very vague, and amendment No. 11 would clarify it, it would be great if the Minister went through and stated which of these aspects of amendment No. 11 are going to apply or not or if he accepts amendment No. 11 as an expansion of clarification. There is also the point concerning amendment No. 12. Is that amendment grouped with this? It is.”
“Having agreed without an obligation to this, having chosen to say we want to move into this next phase where we have these tribunals which can make awards against us - again a step that solely the Government is choosing to push at this time rather than continue in a longer period of provisional application - by doing that and pressing that point and placing us in that situation, all that we can come back at according to the Government is that we will agree to bodies making these rulings against us voluntarily but we will not enforce them if they compromise the constitutional order or the autonomy of the European Union. What does that mean? Does that mean at the absolute minimum the constitutional order is when it would affect the fact we are a constitutional nation and that the European Union can make laws?”
“They are not saying they understand that we did not opt into whatever decisions are made or that this is why it has to be done or that there are new EU rules which set the context and even though that affects a company that was encouraged to invest in Ireland, Ireland has to ensure it is abiding by the European Court of Justice and its rulings. That is not binding on an arbitration body when it is deciding how much compensation to award. It may be a factor that is considered or not but it is not binding in any way.”
“It is suing everybody for compensation in relation to the 2022 windfall profits tax on the energy sector and is challenging the implementation of EU Council directives and again, in the case of Denmark, this is where the effects kick in. The German Government decided not to collect the tax on the investor and the tribunal ordered that the German Government should not collect the tax pending the outcome of the case. There are multiple examples whereby the arbitration bodies are not asking how this fits in. They are not saying they understand Ireland made this decision because of a referendum of the people that mandated measures in relation to care or whatever else it might have been.”
“There are multiple examples here. In Huawei vs Sweden, it took a case - an ISDS claim - against Sweden over Sweden's decision to ban Huawei's involvement in 5G in line with an EU policy on the transposition of the EU toolbox on cybersecurity international law. A number of countries took measures in relation to that. In that tribunal, Sweden asked that the EU would be allowed to give evidence in the case. This is even to be allowed to give evidence in the case - and the tribunal limited input from the EU and dismissed any need for the EU to place Sweden's actions in the context of EU law. In the case of Klesch vs the EU, Germany and Denmark, this is a fossil fuel investor suing the EU, Germany and Denmark.”
“It considers the law solely in relation to how that company has been affected in relation to its reasonable expectations of profit and whether its future profit has been taken from it in a way that is unfair or unreasonable. It is not considering in the round how that really relates to constitutional issues in Ireland or what were the obligations that the Irish Government had under the Court of Justice of the European Union. It may choose to consider that but it is not bound by it. We are not talking about a new court that is somehow sitting inside the legal system we know; we are talking about new courts or tribunals that are sitting outside our legal systems. It simply goes to our legal systems to have them enforced and have the moneys taken. In terms of making the awards, however, it does not consider that.”
“The Minister quoted a lot about the European Court of Justice, and that was a consideration of whether it is directly in itself de facto a conflict to have these courts exist. That was that ruling but it was not a matter of endorsing the findings of it. There were a lot of conditionalities of hopes from the Court of Justice of the European Union as to how things might work out but let us be clear, in terms of the arbitration bodies themselves, they are not bound by the European Court of Justice. They are not bound by national law or constitutional referendums. If an arbitration body of any kind of these kinds of investor-State mechanisms is being asked whether a company is being treated fairly or inequitably, it considers the law solely in itself.”
“What if the compensatory award from the arbitration tribunal is based on a refusal by a relevant tribunal to follow a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and if the measure the Government has taken, for which compensation has been sought, is one that if we did not take that measure, we would be in conflict with rulings Court of Justice of the European Union? Indeed, what if it is a situation whereby this compensatory measure for which enforcement is being sought would impose on the State liability or damages in relation to the enactment or maintenance of a legislative measure that the State enacted in good faith within its constitutional order - and some later ones are going to come in which set it out a little bit more? Why this all matters is the arbitration bodies are not bound.”
“Are we talking about a situation whereby, in terms of the Constitution, if we have a referendum and that referendum of our Constitution gives rise to consequent measures and then we have a case taken seeking compensation in relation to measures which have arisen as a result of that referendum, will they be eligible or not if we have situations again? If we as a collective choose to give each other particular rights and those rights end up compromising in a way that is claimed to be unfair or inequitable to the interests of a particular industry or company, will that be featured? How will that factor into the enforcement piece?”
“11, that make it a little bit clearer when we talk about the idea and we make the choice – this is stepping into the noose analogy from Senator McDowell - to place ourselves at the mercy of a tribunal and then say that we will not enforce it if it conflicts with this very vague language about constitutional order and the European Union? What we have in amendment no. 11 from Senator Andrews and others is something that is actually more meaningful, whereby when we say that we will not conflict with the autonomy, does that mean that we will not conflict with the ability to deliver on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, not through a direct block but by compromising the ability and obligation of the State to give effect to European laws?”
“What we are seeing in amendment No. 11 is an attempt to expand the very vague language there is in the Bill at the moment. Basically, it says it was never enforceable and we would not enforce it if enforcing it would compromise the constitutional order of the State or the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union. It is very unclear what is meant by the constitutional order of the State or what is meant by the autonomy of the legal order of the European Union. Is that a bar that is very far back, where we are almost back to the right to regulate? If it compromises the existing Constitution and the fact that the European Union has its autonomy, are we going to get into the kind of granular examples, which are provided under amendment No.”
“It is an important point, but it will be done without scrutiny and even the requests that we wrongly agreed to. I did not agree to them personally. We voted against. I am referring to pre-legislative scrutiny, expert input and any of the areas of examination that are, and should be, properly applied to future agreements. It is clear that the Minister of State and I disagree on this matter, and we will circle back to it, but, on this aspect, it is incorrect to suggest that it will only be the ICS that is attached. That is not the case. That is not what is on the paper in front of us that we are being asked to agree to.”
“To be very clear, all that is referred to here is an agreement providing for the making of awards pursuant to investment dispute resolution provisions. There is no exclusion in this Bill as to which investment dispute resolution provisions may be applied in relation to other agreements. We will come back to this later, but it is a pig in a poke. We do not know. The Minister of State may state his intention in respect of which kinds of trade agreements he intends to sign up to personally, but he may be gone in a few years' time. Perhaps he will be here for decades. Who knows? The point is that any future Minister will be able to add any other kind of future agreement with any other kind of future investment dispute resolution mechanisms attached. The Minister of State will say that it will have to be approved by the Dáil-----”
“The right to regulate is meaningless. It is like giving somebody the right to breathe. It literally has nothing to do with it. The right to regulate was not impinged on by other agreements. What other agreements did was to have a cost attached. This concerns a tribunal making awards for compensation. It is not about whether a thing can be done, but about how much it costs. We know that how much it costs can, effectively, lead to a chilling effect, where things do not happen and legislation is not made and where it becomes impractical in some cases and impossible in others for governments to legislate and deliver the public policies that they may wish to deliver. We have a litany of examples of that. That was true in the past and it is true under the terms of the ICS.”
“The right to regulate, which we have said we will come back to, is a red herring because the question is not about the right to regulate. That has not been compromised by previous trade agreements. What has been compromised is the effective ability to regulate without an unknown and incredibly dissuasive and dangerous cost being attached to that regulation. Again, there is fair and equitable language in the old agreements too. What is also in CETA is an allowance that the old rules can be applied. That set of rules has given us many judgments that are very problematic. The language the Minister of State referred to concerning the right to regulate and being fair and equitable does absolutely nothing to address that-----”
“It is not the case that this legislation provides that provision. It is incorrect of the Minister of State to suggest that the Government has been clear in our legislation that it is possible to sign up to any international agreement where that agreement provides for the making of awards pursuant to investment dispute resolution provisions. It does not state which investment dispute resolution provisions. The Minister of State is asking that we trust the Government because he is sure the investment dispute resolutions will be wonderful. He is saying that about this Government and every future Government until infinity, because there is a 20-year exit clause. He is saying there will always be better investment dispute resolution mechanisms. There is a workaround, which is the fact that it can be done under this Bill.”
“Second, it is possible to choose to apply the old rules. Regarding whether they are applied in the new tribunal, it is being applied in relation to a new agreement, but the old rules are being applied. Third, this is not just about that aspect. If the Government were serious about this issue, it would be saying it would only allow for enforcement of judgments made under the ICS system, but that is not what is in the Bill. The Bill allows for enforcement under any investor state arbitration rules, subject to the constraints on the Government that we will come to later, that come under any agreement that may be signed in the future. It is misleading to suggest we need not worry because none of this will happen when the legislation leaves that wide open. I know we need to move on and we have amendments to deal with.”
“I will move on from this issue, but it is clear that the ICSID rules can apply. Whether or not it is in the same tribunal, the issue is under which rules it is being applied. The other issue here is that there is nothing in the legislation the Minister of State is proposing that ties us to the ICS. This is not solely about CETA or Chile. It is about any deal that might be signed under any arbitration rules. We need to be very clear for the House and the record that there is nothing in this legislation which ensures that these cases would be taken under the ICS rules. Regarding the language about being fair and equitable, and all of that, this is the same language and the same kinds of criteria that were being applied in all those previous rulings. First, it has not changed very much.”
“We need to be factually clear and accurate that what we are being asked to sign off on in CETA, as well as the fact that it is wide open in other areas of the Bill for any kind of arbitration rules, is a situation where corporations can use those rules of their choice in relation to a decision, and they are not bound, unless they choose to be bound, by any of the very moderate reforms that were made to the ICS. That is just a correction. We will have time to get back into this because we have an amendment in relation to this. That is under Article 8.23. I will now move to the section and our amendments but that was a fact that was being debated when the debate adjourned.”
“If the consent of both parties to use the new investor court system is not forthcoming, the investor can choose to use the ICSID convention and the ICSID additional facility rules. The exact opposite is true, therefore. These supposedly better rules will only apply if corporations decide they want to use them, and they will have the discretion to move back. That is made clear under Article 8.23 of CETA, which states that a claim can be submitted under "the ICSID Convention and Rules of Procedure", the "ICSID Additional Facility Rules", the "UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules" or "any other rules on agreement of the disputing parties." It is only where the investor chooses to use these supposedly reformed - I would question that - ICS rules that consent is required from both parties. Otherwise, the investor has full discretion.”
“I am keen, with others, I think, to move through the amendments we have. There are a number of very important and pertinent amendments to discuss today. As I am in possession, and before we move to decide on the section, I will make a small correction on the matter that was being discussed when we adjourned. I had said that the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID, rules, the older arbitration rules, can be used in relation to the CETA agreement and the Minister had suggested that was only by consent. In fact, that is not the case. They can be used by an investor. The area that requires consent is if the investor wants to use the investor court system, ICS. If one wants to use the new investor court system, that requires the consent of both parties.”
“There may be measures of simplification but we need to hear the unpacking of that and competitiveness, when the comparative advantage Europe had was its standards and the opportunity for industries to respond to the real world, where climate change is real, where there is diversity and where society matters. I would love if the MEPs could unpack what the learning should be, even from austerity, when we come back on the competitiveness. We lost a decade to austerity and that is where the competitiveness was lost.”
“I am also concerned about the EU-Morocco deal, where we see a replication of some very poor decision-making and a measure which, again, could end up rewarding settlers in illegally occupied territories, rather than citizens. It is replicating some of the terrible mistakes that have been made regarding Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. There are crucial decisions being made at this time, and I would like to know what MEPs are doing to unpack those pieces, and not just the sloganeering on simplification, when we know it is deregulation.”
“That is an area we need to tackle collectively and, of course, it has come to the forefront when we look at what has been happening. I would like to touch on two key trade areas I think are very important. One is the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. There are direct actions Ireland could be taking like the proper passing of the occupied territories Bill - that is clear - as well as action regarding the facilitation of Israeli bonds, arms and so forth. However, at that EU level, I was very disappointed to see a vote against a debate on the new death penalty; a death penalty which treats Palestinians differently, literally in a life and death way. A debate on that was blocked.”
“However, they have now been lumped into a competitiveness fund, where they are up against drones and everything else. Are the MEPs championing and pushing for dedicated funding in this area, and for this to be ring-fenced? At present, and in general within the budget, how do we ensure we do not see a routing of everything towards defence without safeguards? For example, our finance committee put forward a very strong report on this, which showed that much of the money going into arms, including into the underwriting of loans, could be used for cluster bombs. There is an area or gap regarding defence and oversight - and we know it is not even covered by the AI Act - that relates to military technologies and defence.”
“I would love the MEPs' comments on that as a general approach and what specific actions they are taking within the system in challenging how that is being done. I am concerned about the multi-annual financial framework. We are now seeing a huge shift away from social cohesion and environmental funding, which are important. We know in Ireland that social cohesion funding means actually building peace. There has been a re-routing of that into defence, with one of the clear examples being things like the lack of dedicated funding for nature restoration and the Natura programmes and LIFE programme, which all benefit many farms within the regions the MEPs represent. Those small subsidies have been very important, as they are what makes nature restoration happen.”
“I am very worried about the omnibus legislation we are seeing across a range of areas which, as far as I can see, is setting fire to many of the best things about Europe. I would love the MEPs' comments on this. People do not expect it but we are seeing the roll-back in environmental areas and on corporate accountability. I engaged with, as I am sure did many of the MEPs, the corporate due diligence legislation. It took years to negotiate but was undone in an omnibus packet very quickly. There is a concern that the digital omnibus will undermine GDPR rights, as well as concerns regarding the environmental area. I believe there are six or seven or eight more omnibuses due, which is very worrying.”
“It is a crucial time for Europe. We are seeing not just worrying decisions about Europe's future but also much of Europe's past being eroded at present. I took part in the Future of Europe process; I was one of the four parliamentarians from Ireland. When I spoke to the 800 citizens from across Europe, they spoke about European values. In a real sense, when they talked about them they meant the fundamental rights and the increase in environmental standards, employment standards and equality standards. That is what they were proud of. However, we have heard more and more of a conversation from the institutions since then about power; one that was very much shifting away from those values.”
“I move: That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to give effect to the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production, transfer, development and investment in autonomous weapons systems.”
“I give credit to Stephen Reid in my office, who has given leadership in this whole programme of developing this area of work.”
“Ireland, by bringing a prohibition through, will be in a much stronger position to then drive the necessary international conversation. When we think about these programmes and how they come in, we can look to some of the programmes we have seen. Some of them may technically meet the definition here. I have drawn on the International Red Cross. Others may not. There are programmes that automatically target people based on a family member coming home, for example, the "Where's Daddy" and "Lavender" programmes. They are designed to target children, by their nature. This is something on which Ireland can give leadership. The Government has stated that this is its position internationally. I hope it will support the Bill to prohibit lethal autonomous weapons.”
“In 2023, Ireland signed a UN General Assembly motion tabled by Austria calling for the co-operation of states on the regulation of these weapons and supporting their prohibition in situations where there is no guaranteed human control or compliance with international humanitarian law. The purpose of this Bill is to put that in place. It is for Ireland to give leadership, not just in pushing for a global treaty but also on a national level to bring in a prohibition of this specific category of weapons system. It is important to note that areas like AI, defence and military action are not part of the EU law structures. For example, the AI Act explicitly carves out and does not address the use of these technologies in relation to defence or weaponry because that is a national level competence. That is why we need national level leadership.”
“This is our opportunity to move forward and look to the new and very serious threat posed by lethal autonomous weapon systems. These systems are defined as any weapons system with autonomy at its critical function, a weapon system that can select and attack targets without human intervention, often using AI. It separates the decision to take a human life from an individual or a command structure that can be held accountable and, instead, we have a situation where an algorithm, programme or piece of software can in fact have the ability to decide who lives or dies in the areas where they are operating. This is a perversion of our humanity. It is vital that Ireland take a leading role in pushing for legally binding treaties, regulating and, where appropriate, banning these categories of weapons.”
“I am proposing a Bill which seeks to build on something we should be very proud of, namely, Ireland's record on disarmament. Ireland was the first country to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That was done by Frank Aiken. Ireland played a key role in hosting the negotiations to ban cluster munitions. I was there myself. They are one of the most appalling weapons that specifically target and affect civilians in their impact. We also played a key role in the anti-personnel mine ban convention. This is Ireland's record in disarmament. It is something we should be proud of - in fact we should be standing over it at a time when we are seeing a slipping away in that regard. Very worryingly, countries are leaving the cluster bomb and landmine conventions.”
“I second the amendment. I am very happy to support Senator Stephenson's Bill. I was deeply disappointed when my arms embargo Bill was blocked in this House. It was, again, a Bill seeking to address the transit of arms. Senator Stephenson's Bill is taking a different approach, but an equally constructive one, to the wider issue of the transit of arms and other inappropriate uses of our airspace and airports. The Bill is very constructive. I believe it addresses many of the reasons and rationales we heard from the Government in relation to my Bill. I hope we will see it progressing through the House. I am delighted to support and co-sign it. I also propose another amendment to the Order of Business to introduce my own Bill. I formally propose that No. 12 be taken before No. 1.”