Proceeding contribution from Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill [HL].
Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill [HL]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I hope that I can clarify to his satisfaction the issues that he has raised. Clause 1 defines the prohibited munitions to which the Bill will apply. These are cluster munitions and relevant explosive bomblets, the definitions of which we have been careful to take exactly from the Convention on Cluster Munitions, as set out in Article 2. I can assure the noble Lord that these definitions are comprehensive. Needless to say, they capture all those munitions that present significant humanitarian risk and cause unacceptable harm to civilians. As noble Lords will be aware, the convention and therefore the Bill do not apply to munitions which have all of the following characteristics: each munition contains fewer than 10 explosive submunitions; each explosive submunition weighs more than four kilograms; each explosive submunition is designed to detect and engage a single target object; each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-destruction mechanism; and each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-deactivating feature. It was agreed at Dublin that munitions with these characteristics avoid indiscriminate effects and the humanitarian risk posed by unexploded submunitions. The military may therefore maintain necessary capability through their use. Article 2 of the convention excludes munitions with electronic effects. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, expressed concern at Second Reading that in prohibiting cluster munitions we did not limit the technical capability of our Armed Forces. In particular, he mentioned the CBU-94/B, which scatters fibres to short-circuit electricity systems. I can reassure him that this will not be the case and can confirm that the convention’s, and therefore the Bill’s, prohibitions do not extend to munitions designed to produce electrical or electronic effects such as the CBU-94/B. Amendment 1 would remove from the Bill key definitions, including of prohibited munitions, thereby making the Bill extremely difficult to apply. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 716 c2-3GC
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Armed conflict Arms control Cluster munitions International cooperation Powers of entry Convention on Cluster Munitions
- Legislation
- Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-09-25 10:35:11 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604719
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604719
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604719