Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Chris Bryant (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 17 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill (HL) 2009-10.


Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill [Lords]

I have not personally been involved in any discussions with NATO on this, but I think the hon. Gentleman is pointing in the wrong direction as to where an agreement is needed. The first step is to try to secure universal acceptance of the convention. That would mean there is no peril for anybody; there would be no moral peril as well as no legal peril from being indirectly involved, through other personnel, in the use of cluster munitions. That is why it is important that while there are still signatories and non-signatories, article 21 of the convention should make it clear that, notwithstanding article 1 on the list of prohibitions, personnel of a signatory country could engage in military co-operation and operations with personnel from non-signatory countries. Otherwise, I think there would have been legal peril.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
507 c895 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Arms control Cluster munitions Bomb disposal EU countries Landmines Treaties Terminology USA Non-governmental organisations Convention on Cluster Munitions
Legislation
Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill (HL) 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk