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]
I thank the noble Lord. I hope that I can offer some of the definition and precision asked for on this matter. The convention includes the assembly of cluster munitions, so that is clearly there. As your Lordships are aware, as a state party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, we will be permitted to retain a limited number of munitions for certain permitted purposes. I elaborated on what these were in winding up the debate on Second Reading. We were in the process of determining exactly how many we need to retain for training, detection, clearance and destruction techniques, as well as the possible development of countermeasures. The convention does not stipulate any maximum number that may be retained by states parties. Article 3(6) requires that this number should be limited and should not exceed the minimum number absolutely necessary for permitted purposes. That is absolutely clear. I assure your Lordships that this is the Government’s intention. It is difficult to anticipate how many cluster munitions we may need to retain for the training and development of countermeasures. The number may change depending on current circumstances. The number of anti-personnel mines retained has increased in recent years due to the need for training and development in countermeasures against improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. To set a fixed number in the Bill would make it inflexible and difficult for us to meet such needs. In implementing the convention, the Bill reflects this restriction. Under Clause 6, the Secretary of State may authorise only the possession or transfer of cluster munitions in numbers necessary for permitted purposes. It is important to note that in doing so the Bill mirrors similar provisions in the Landmines Act 1998. The number retained will also be publicly available for scrutiny. It will be included in our transparency report under the convention, as is the case with the anti-personnel mines that are being retained. On this basis, I hope that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 716 c6-7GC
- 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 10:35:12 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604735
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604735
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_604735