Proceeding contribution from Chris Bryant (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 23 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill [Lords].
Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill [Lords]
We could have left out clause 24, which would have meant that the Attorney-General had no role to play. However, there are several reasons why we decided that it was important to include such a measure, the first and foremost of which is the severity of the penalty, which, as has been cited, is up to 14 years' imprisonment. Secondly, there is an extra-territorial element to the Bill, which means that a much more complicated set of decisions must be made before a prosecution can go ahead. Thirdly, in legislation such as the Landmines Act 1998, we have included a similar provision to require the Attorney-General's consent. I am not particularly troubled about the Northern Ireland-UK dimension, because the prosecution of someone in Northern Ireland could in any case be started in England and Wales. I therefore do not think that any further amendments are necessary.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 508 c170
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Armed forces Decommissioning Deployment Arms control Cluster munitions Enforcement Powers of entry Prosecutions Treaties
- Legislation
- Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Bill (HL) 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:35:46 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633178
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633178
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633178