Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill [HL] [Failed Bill 2006/07 session]

The Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill calls for the control of cluster munitions and for their destruction. The Bill would create offences out of the use, production, or acquisition of cluster munitions. It would also make provisions for the safe destruction of a prohibited object.

Cluster bombs are defined as munitions containing up to several hundred sub-munitions which explode immediately or deposit anti-personnel devices over an area the size of several football pitches. Classically they are used for area denial to enemy forces. There is an estimated failure rate of 6.5 per cent according to the Ministry of Defence - this means that those munitions that fail to explode immediately on impact remain lethal and can lead to civilian deaths.

YouGov conducted an opinion poll in October 2006. Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “The UK should support an international ban on cluster bombs”. The results showed that 81 per cent were in favour of a ban.

In a Commons debate on cluster munitions, defence minister Adam Ingram stated that alternative munitions “may not possess the necessary capabilities to defeat the intended target in a timely manner” and that the ban of cluster munitions would lead to more close-combat fighting which could lead to more humanitarian risk.

Lord Dubs (Lab) introduced the Bill; he said: “I suggest to the House and, indeed, the government that military necessity is not a good argument in favour of cluster munitions”.

Liberal Democrat spokesperson for international development Baroness Northover said “the campaign to ban cluster bombs has all the hallmarks of that to ban landmines, for much the same reasons; they are not militarily effective and they produce disproportionately civilian casualties”.

Government spokesperson for defence Baroness Crawley said the Bill had a “humanitarian element at its core, which we applaud, but it does not recognise the arguments of military necessity or the need to equip our Armed Forces to undertake the missions that we ask of them. For those reasons, we believe that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is inconsistent with our current military requirements, and that is why the government have reservations about it”.

House of Lords

First reading: November 23 2006 [HL Bill 10]

Second reading: December 15 2006

Committee:

• 1st sitting: January 31 2007 (discharged)

Third reading: February 20 2007

House of Commons

First reading: February 27 2007 [HC Bill 68]

Bill dropped