Landmines

HL Deb 14 February 1994 vol 552 cc79-90

7.59 p.m.

Lord Deedes rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the export of landmines and equipment to detect them.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am raising this question because I think that we should pay more attention to the havoc being wrought in the world today, mainly among innocent people, by the misuse of landmines. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranborne for being ready to respond to some of these points. Having seen something of the problem, I feel strongly that every civilised government ought to look again at their position.

We are talking about a death roll in the world today of about 800 people a month, most of whom are civilians. We are talking about another 2,000 people a month being crippled for life— and in countries with sparse medical facilities. If casualties on that scale arose from chemical, gas or nuclear weapons, there would be uproar. We would be thoroughly alarmed. We would be demanding that something be done about it.

But the fact is that we are not at risk. The single casualties— there is about one every 15 minutes in the world today— are not reported. They are not noticed and they create no public alarm. So we have what I can only describe as a "complacent silence" on the subject.

As well as the casualties, millions of acres of land have been lost. Thousands of villages and homes are lost to their inhabitants. In Cambodia, where I am about to go, about 1,700 people are killed each year because of mines and 3,200 million square metres have been infested by mines.

When damage of that order afflicts some of the poorest people on earth, I find it hard to square what is our curious lack of concern with our professed sympathy for the developing world— and even more with our professed sympathy for the environment. Landmines are the enemy of the environment. I should add that the aid that we give to the poorest nations is but a fraction of what the United Nations in New York warns me it will cost to lift even a proportion of those mines— work that will occupy something like a century.

The use of mines, anti-personnel and anti-tank— all 300 types of them— has become totally indiscriminate. Some years ago during the defence of Britain, some of us laid mines. We mapped them and although I was never sure what happened to the maps, we did our best. Those mines had a defence purpose. Today, their primary purpose is not military defence. They have become strategic weapons that are aimed directly at civilians. They are designed to kill and maim innocent people. They are designed to cause unimaginable suffering. They are designed, above all, to terrorise; to deny people their homes. Let us try to imagine the plight of refugees, of whom there are millions, returning after a long civil war to find their homes barred by mines that they cannot see and cannot find.

I estimate that the world today is carrying between 85 million and 100 million landmines. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's estimate. The cost of lifting any one of them is upwards of 1,000 dollars. The time taken to lift a mine is 100 times the time taken to plant it. Yet mines are still being laid. Vast numbers are still being laid in the former Yugoslavia. They are being laid faster than we can lift them. Is it true, by the way, that we prohibit mine-detecting equipment going to the former Yugoslavia on the grounds that it is considered to be an armament?

Inevitably, thousands more people will die and tens of thousands will suffer agonies because survivors, so the International Committee of the Red Cross tells me, take an average of six hours after the accident to reach hospital— that is, if they survive at all— where the treatment will be rudimentary for what is an extremely complex injury. As the British Medical Journal explains: Land mines have ruinous effects on the human body: they drive dirt, bacteria, clothing and metal and plastic fragments into the tissue— causing secondary infections". And that has to be dealt with by only second-rate medical facilities.

I think that the cruelty of what is going on and the death roll calls for a little more than we are doing now. It seems to me to be not all that far removed from the war crimes of the Second World War, which have haunted us ever since.

As the [CRC insists, these weapons are causing damage to civilians out of all proportion to their military use and, on those grounds, should be prohibited. I ask the Minister: where do we now stand on this matter? I hope that he will assure us that we no longer export these pernicious weapons, in any shape or form, for other people's wars. But should we not go further? Why are we hesitating— or appear to be hesitating— to support the United Nations call, backed by the United States of America, for an international ban on those weapons? I have heard it said that such a ban would be "unworkable". Well, it works for chemical warfare, so why should it not work for mines?

I am not insensitive to the military view. I understand it. But in my submission this holocaust— and it is no less than a holocaust— transcends the military view. I want to see us think again about the ban. In this dreadful sphere, I want to see us give humanity a breathing space.

8.7 p.m.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, for initiating this debate. I do not claim to be an expert on landmines. My first experience of them was when I accidentally walked into a minefield. I did not do that out of great courage or heroic or stupid bravery. In fact, I only knew that I had walked through a minefield when I was told afterwards that the area through which we had walked was an uncleared minefield. It was in Zimbabwe. Troops were called out later to dispose of a mine that had recently been uncovered by wind and rain. Nobody had known that a mine was there. It was blown up later using a rifle. I think that shows that one of the big problems with minefields is that although they affect large areas of the world nobody really knows where they are.

When I looked into the history of landmines I found that they were originally developed to protect another form of mine. There are two forms of mine: the anti-tank mine and the anti-personnel mine. The anti-personnel mine was developed to protect the anti-tank mine and to stop people tampering with it. They have developed ever since. One of the insidious things about the anti-personnel mines is that they are now so developed that they are used not as a weapon of defence but as a weapon of offence. They are used mostly against civilians. As the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, pointed out, whatever we say tonight, there still remains the fact that about 100 million landmines are planted around the world. Nobody knows the actual figure. Our objective should be prevention rather than cure.

Landmines are indiscriminately placed. Today they are not distributed by conventional armies, although they are used by them. They are not an object of military use; they are used largely in countries where internal conflicts are taking place. I refer specifically to Mozarnbique, which I have visited, and to Angola, about which I have seen programmes. No one knows where the mines are. An insidious nature of the new anti-personnel mines is highlighted by the Russian butterfly mine. It represents the epitome of what is wrong with them. They are small, plastic mines which are difficult to detect and are distributed by being thrown out of helicopters. When thrown from a helicopter they will, due to their design, fly and land anywhere. They were used mainly in Afghanistan and because of their shape many children picked them up and, as a result, lost their arms.

The fact that children pick up landmines shows what today they are all about; they are weapons used against civilians. Last May I attended a convention on anti-personnel mines and was able to look at the whole range. I had previously seen a number of military anti-personnel mines but those that I saw last year shocked me. If one saw such a mine out of context or without knowing what it was one would think That it was a toy. One would think that it was a plastic boat to put in the bath. They have been developed so that they cannot be detected. They are cheap to produce They are merely a piece of plastic with a button which is wrapped around a plastic explosive. They cannot be found, and for that reason their distribution is dangerous. They can be distributed anywhere; indeed, during my research I discovered that they can be put into any location one can imagine. When thinking of landmines one usually has a Second World War image of an area surrounded by a barbed-wire fence and signs clearly stating that mines are present. These mines can be placed anywhere.

One of the worst aspects is that the production of mines has become a massive international industry. Apart from a few countries in Africa almost every country, including the whole of the developed world, is making mines or is receiving them. Clusters of minefields are a danger to civilians. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, the problem is in removing mines. That is more difficult than laying them. One merely has to toss the mine aside in order to lay it and it will arm itself— it is ready for use. However, it is very difficult to get rid of a mine. One of the saddest aspects of the Gulf War was illustrated in a recent programme showing that people involved in removing mines and trying to make the area safe and habitable had lost their lives.

It was not until I researched the subject that realised that the ODA has spent a great deal of money and has been a leading light in mine clearance, which must be to its credit. One of the problems is that mines will be with us for decades to come; once planted they can last for many years and are always dangerous.

As the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, pointed out, landmines are being laid faster than they are being taken up. Consequently, large areas of the world are becoming uninhabitable. People who live in those areas can lose their arms and legs as a result of the mines. We must introduce a complete ban on the production and sale of mines. Do the Government plan to attempt to sway international opinion along those lines? I was surprised to learn that the Government have not signed the 1980 inhumane weapons convention. Its long title is the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional 'Weapons Which May 13e Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. I press the Government to sign that convention as soon as possible and perhaps the Minister will indicate whether the Government intend to do so.

8.16 p.m.

Lord Rea

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, for putting this important topic on our agenda tonight. He and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, described in detail the impact of this cruel weapon of war. Long after hostilities have ceased it continues to kill and seriously maim innocent civilians, who as often as not are children, and the animals they tend. Most of the victims are rural people who live and work on land over which warring armies or bands once passed. Perhaps even less acceptable is the fact that mines in their thousands— and, overall, in their millions — have been dropped indiscriminately from the air making areas of land uninhabitable in an attempt to break an opponent economically and deny them the ability to grow food. Sadly, as has been pointed out, that problem is not with us merely as a result of former conflicts; anti-personnel mines are still being laid as near home as Bosnia and as far afield as Angola, Burma, Afghanistan, the Sudan and probably many other countries. The countries worst affected by past mine laying are: in South-East Asia, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Burma; in Western Asia, Afghanistan and Kurdistan; in Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Apart from the inhumanity, and I suggest the illegality, of wounding and killing civilians, there is a serious economic effect on the countries involved and a prolongation of the refugee problem. Many thousands of refugees are waiting in refugee camps in Thailand to be resettled in Cambodia because the lands in which they could settle are contaminated with mines. Many large tracts of good agricultural land lie untilled and will be unusable for many years. The problem is compounded because the countries concerned are poor and are dependent on agriculture.

Non-governmental organisations working in poor communities are most aware of the problem, which affects rural communities, agricultural development and primary and secondary health care, because of the regular arrivals in hospitals of seriously wounded people who often need amputation of one or more limbs. One non-governmental organisation has been set up specifically to cope with the mines problem— the Mines Advisory Group, based in Cockermouth in Cumbria. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, those NGOs receive government support on a fifty-fifty basis, but I wonder whether that is enough.

People in remote areas who would perhaps survive with more prompt care may die before receiving adequate medical and surgical treatment. In any event, such care may be inadequate in the countries where it is most needed. Figures I have show that in Cambodia in 1990,6,000 amputations were necessary because of anti-personnel mine injuries which caused 12,000 or more deaths in addition. There are 30,000 amputees in Cambodia, and some estimates put it at nearer 50,000. There are 60,000 in Vietnam.

The weapons explode one by one over a long period, often in areas off the beaten track. Therefore, they do not receive news coverage. That was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes. In fact one of the main benefits of the Unstarred Question may well be that it will bring the effects of this inhuman practice further onto the political map. We must try to put this issue onto centre stage among the international problems facing the Government.

I am sure that the noble Viscount will not say that the problem is none of the British Government's business because we did not lay the mines. I think better of him than that. I should point out though that we have supplied mines over the years; we have developed some of the technology; and we have trained some countries in the techniques of laying them. We hope that the Government will share some of the anxieties which we have expressed.

I hope, first, that the Government will recognise that these weapons are inhumane and should be banned under international law. Secondly, the Government and all countries should stop the manufacture and export of these weapons. I should point out that a moratorium on their export has been declared by the United States and France. We should do that too as an example to other nations.

We should step up assistance to mine-clearing operations throughout the world. We are in a very good position to do that because we have the technical know-how and military expertise which could assist other countries.

I should like to amplify those three points. As regards the inhumanity of the weapons, such weapons would be prohibited by the United Nations convention of 1980 which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned. The noble Lord gave its long title but it is usually known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention. It refers in particular to landmines, booby traps and other such devices.

That protocol arose from the more general additional protocols of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva conventions on the conduct of military operations. For reasons which I do not understand, the Government have not yet ratified the convention. I am aware that it is not perfect. For example, it applies only to international conflicts and not to internal or civil wars, in which many of the mines have been used. As with all conventions, it is extremely difficult to enforce adherence. Nevertheless, if the ratification of that convention were to become the stated policy of the Government, other countries which have not yet signed it would be encouraged to do so. That would help to edge anti-personnel mines off the acceptable list of tradable and usable methods of war.

I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to assure us that at some point we shall sign the 1980 Inhuman Weapons Convention. In addition, at present discussions are taking place at the United Nations with regard to updating and making that convention more effective. Those discussions were set in motion by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Are the British Government involved in them?

Secondly, what is the current position regarding the manufacture and export of these weapons by the United Kingdom? That is the salient point of the Unstarred Question. Is it still going on? Why have we not been able to follow the example of the United States and France in accepting a self-imposed moratorium? The fact that many other countries, including other European countries and a large number of developing countries, are now making those devices should not be used as an excuse. Nor do I feel that, if the anti-personnel weapons exported by Britain are made in such a way that they are self-destructive or have only a timed life, it is a sufficient safeguard because many of these self-destroying devices, or some of them at least, will not work and if only a small percentage do not, people could be blown up and land is unusable.

Thirdly, what are we doing to contribute to the widespread need for assistance with de-mining and rehabilitation for victims? As has been said, it is estimated that there are 100 million mines still contaminating 60 countries in the world. I am aware that this has been discussed by the United Nations and at various meetings of NGOs, which have called for a ban on the use of those weapons. In addition, they call for programmes to rehabilitate countries which are affected and to destroy the landmines that are there. For example, Handicap International, Human Rights Watch, Medico International, the Mines Advisory Group and Physicians for Human Rights have come together to issue a joint call to ban anti-personnel landmines. They call for: An international ban on the use, production, stockpiling, and sale, transfer or export of anti-personnel mines; and the establishment of an international fund, administered by the United Nations, to promote and finance landmine awareness, clearance and eradication programmes worldwide; and countries responsible for the production and dissemination of antipersonnel mines to contribute to the international fund". However, even if a plan for de-mining is worked out, as the resolution suggests, it is expensive and needs funding. It is estimated that it costs 100 times as much to detect and clear a mine as it does to manufacture one. If there are 100 million mines which cost 100 dollars each to make, it will cost 10 billion dollars to clear them. That is a very large sum. But I suggest that, spread out over a longish period, it should be a possible aim. It would be an extremely good investment because it would put back into use land which is now unusable. On these Benches, we would like to see the United Kingdom at the forefront of such activity, both contributing technically and financially. It is not appropriate to let NGOs shoulder the burden as is now the case.

Just the other day, I noticed in the Guardian an advertisement from the Mine Advisory Group of Cumbria asking for a non-government volunteer to take up a post in Laos to train people in de-mining operations. I believe that the Government should be doing that; it should not be up to non-governmental organisations to do so.

The United Nations General Assembly has passed a resolution stating that, responsibility for removing mines and other remnants of war rests with the countries who planted them". That, perhaps, could be interpreted as letting us off the hook, as we were not actively involved. However, as I said earlier, we helped to develop the technology and supply some of the mines— for which we were paid. The governments or factions within the countries that laid the mines and which should, theoretically, pay, mostly do not have the resources to do so; or, in many cases, they had been replaced or overthrown. They are just not there. But, in that context, I should point out that Argentina has come forward with an offer to assist with the eradication of mines in the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.

In conclusion, this tragic prolongation of the miseries of war through, a weapon of mass destruction in slow motion", is just one example of the consequences of the whole trade in lethal weapons. That, sadly, still forms far too large a portion of our exports. On these Benches, we would like to see a rapid move to diversifying the technical skills and resources of our defence industry towards more constructive products.

Much of the severity and impact of the many conflicts that have afflicted and continue to afflict the developing world can be laid at the doorstep of the industrial North, which has supplied most of the sophisticated and deadly weapons that have been used. It is not for nothing that the arms trade has been likened to immoral earnings, whether or not they are sweetened by gifts of extravagant and unnecessary dams.

By signing the United Nations Convention on inhumane weapons, agreeing to stop the export of anti-personnel mines and wholeheartedly contributing to de-mining programmes, the United Kingdom could start the process of ending this sombre trade in death and mutilation.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, perhaps I tray put a question to the Minister before he replies to the debate. My noble friend Lord McNair and I would like. to know what research is being carried out into new methods of finding and destroying such mines. I know that some ladies with good voices can shatter a glass with a high note. However, is such research going on and, if so, are the Government contributing to it?

8.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)

My Lords, like other speakers who have spoken in this short debate, I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Deedes for tabling the Unstarred Question and for giving us the opportunity to debate such an important subject. I can confirm to my noble friend that a recent United States Department of Defence survey estimated that there are over 100 million landmines laid around the world. Moreover, as the noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Redesdale, pointed out, they were mostly sown indiscriminately. It is also worth noting that over 30 million of those mines were sown in Africa.

The landmines themselves, and their terrible effects on civilians— especially anti-personnel mines which have been laid indiscriminately in countries such as Angola, Cambodia, Somalia and Afghanistan— have been the subject of considerable public concern in recent months. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Deedes and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, both drew attention to the terrible effects of the indiscriminate use of such weapons. So far as concerns Her Majesty's Government's policy arid practice, much of the reporting on our attitude has been, I submit, misleading. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's position. At the same time, I shall attempt to answer my noble friend's questions.

I should record at once that the United Kingdom has not produced or exported landmines for some considerable time. I say that especially to the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Perhaps I may quote a passage from a recent issue of Asiaweek entitled, "A Moral Minefield", which I think clearly illustrates the horrific nature of such weapons. It reads: There are, of course, many who shrink from labelling one weapon as being more immoral than another. Ban landmines? Why not ban Napalm? Why not ban war itself? … Mines stay in their deadly place long after the battle is over. Rifles go back in the armoury but the landmine just keeps on killing". That point was emphatically made by my noble friend Lord Deedes.

The latter brings me to what I believe to be the nub of the problem; namely, the use of such weapons. Any weapon which is used in the wrong way can be dangerous to innocent people. That is why it is so important to have laws and rules which control how such weapons should be used.

It is the Government's firm belief that the problem of the indiscriminate use of landmines is best addressed by encouraging greater adherence to the 1981 United Nations Convention, known as the United Nations Weaponry Convention. I am sure that noble Lords will be aware that that convention has three protocols. The second of those protocols contains strict rules governing the use of landmines, including rules prohibiting the use of landmines against civilians— a rule which, as has been observed this evening, is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Noble Lords will be interested to know that the United Kingdom played an important role in drafting that protocol. In fact, we signed the convention in 1981 and, most importantly, we have always adhered to its principles. We hope to be in a position to ratify— and I believe that this is the news that noble Lords are seeking — later this year. We take now, and will continue to take, every opportunity to encourage other states to do so.

The United Kingdom strongly supports international action aimed at dealing with the indiscriminate laying of anti-personnel landmines. After all, as noble Lords have observed, that has had such terrible consequences for civilians and, indeed, continues to do so. Noble Lords may be aware that the United States tabled a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in November last year which called for states to implement a ban on the export of anti-personnel landmines which pose grave dangers to civilian populations. The US Congress had previously passed a Bill which called for a one-year moratorium on the trade in US anti-personnel mines. The Bill became law in October 1992.

The United Kingdom supported the US resolution, which was adopted without vote by the General Assembly. In supporting the resolution we issued an explanation of our position that landmines are legitimate defensive military weapons when used responsibly and in accordance with the laws of war. If used in accordance with Protocol II of the UN Weaponry Convention, anti-personnel landmines, and particularly those which are self-destructing or self-neutralising, do not pose a grave danger to civilian populations. Consequently, the Government think that it would be wrong for the possession of self-destructing or self-neutralising anti-personnel landmines to be restricted to countries which have the ability to produce them.

As several speakers tonight have observed, the effect of such weapons can be devastating. Their indiscriminate effects on civilian populations around the world is one of the reasons why countries have sought to limit their use. Increasingly calls are being made— as they have been here this evening— for an outright ban on landmines. We have all, particularly through recent media coverage, seen the terrible effects that these weapons can have on innocent civilians when they fall into the hands of people who use them irresponsibly. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has illustrated the point and from my own experience I can cite many examples of the effects that landmines can have. Like the noble Lord, I myself have narrowly escaped those effects.

We must, however, be careful to remember that if used properly and in accordance with the laws of war, landmines are legitimate defensive military weapons. The United Kingdom's Armed Forces are, of course, trained to use them in this way, as, clearly, my noble friend Lord Deedes was during the last war.

As a state party to the convention, France has exercised its right to call a review conference which is likely to take place in 1995. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the main aim of the conference will be to consider strengthening Protocol II on Landmines. We hope to play a full part in the conference and indeed in the preparatory work leading up to it. This will start shortly.

Let me now turn to the important area of how the Government are trying to help those countries in the developing world which are so heavily afflicted by the problem of landmines. The subject was again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, asked about research. Research is continuing on how to explode landmines. Various devices are being improved all the time. I shall write to the noble Lord to give him some examples of the sort of work that is in train.

We have become too well aware that the needs for humanitarian mine clearance operations have grown enormously over the past few years, reflected by the Government's steeply increased commitments, from £ 360,000 in financial year 1991– 2 to £ 1.89 million in financial year 1993– 4. Our actions have concentrated — I think noble Lords would agree that this is right— on the most serious problem countries, for example, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique and north west Somalia. In north west Somalia between November 1991 and May 1992 we provided £ 674,000 to co-fund a mine clearance training and supervision programme for Somali clearers. The programme is continuing under a United Nations contract.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Deedes mentioned Cambodia. Since October 1991 we have given grants totalling £ 492,500 to the Halo Trust for its mine clearance operations in Cambodia. I hope my noble friend Lord Deedes will be able to advise me on what he finds there. We have also provided £ 6,500 for a mine awareness radio programme. Two further project proposals from the Halo Trust worth £ 330,000 are under consideration. The Halo Trust is actively engaged in de-mining in rural Cambodia, focusing on areas of importance to the community such as areas to which internationally displaced people are expected to return. I believe that matter was referred to by noble Lords on all sides of the House.

Until the end of October 1993 the United Kingdom contributed to the costs of the United Nations Transitional Authority for Cambodia which financed mine clearance operations undertaken by the Cambodian mine action centre. Since the end of the United Nations mandate, we have provided £ 133,000 through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to support the continuance of the centre's operations. A proposal for support to the centre for two further years is at present under consideration by donors. Our aid is aimed at reducing casualties caused by mines.

However, that is not the end of it. In addition we have provided £ 470,000 over the past three years to set up and run a limb fitting unit at Calmette hospital in Phnom Penh. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to this important matter. The project included the training of Cambodian technicians in limb fitting techniques. We have also begun funding a similar project in Kompong Sorn in southern Cambodia and have agreed funding of some £ 250,000 for this over three financial years.

As part of our response to United Nations appeals for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, the ODA contributed half a million pounds during the financial year 1992– 3 towards mine clearance programmes of the United Nations office of the co-ordinator for Afghanistan. Further contributions were made to the International Committee of the Red Cross which, among other things, has supported a major hospital in Kabul, and clinics elsewhere in the country.

In Angola— here, I defer to the more recent experience of my noble friend Lord Deedes in that country— we will consider assistance for de-mining as part of a United Nations co-ordinated effort once a formal ceasefire has been established between the Government of Angola and UNITA, and once a permanent peace settlement has begun to take root and to be implemented.

As your Lordships have observed this evening, war injuries, including those caused by mines, have been a major preoccupation of these medical facilities. The Halo Trust has also received money for its de-mining of Afghanistan. Most recently we have been able to support co-ordinated actions to de-mine roads in the Zambezia province of Mozambique, arid to support the Cambodian Mine Action Centre over the next two years. Her Majesty's Government will continue to consider sympathetically funding requests for mine clearance. operations as one of the many demands on their available resources for humanitarian assistance. That is an extremely important demand on our humanitarian assistance.

However, the sheer size of these problems means that humanitarian mine clearance operations are very time consuming and expensive, and indeed are dangerous to those who take part in them. They are best handled on an international basis. Therefore our actions need to be co-ordinated through the United Nations wherever possible. I should point out that we are unable to supply defence equipment— which term includes mine detection equipment— to those countries subject to arms embargoes. These countries include both the former Yugoslavia and Somalia mine detection equipment to other countries suffering the effects of indiscriminate mining are looked at on a case-by-case basis. But I am sure noble Lords will realise from what I have said that we always look sympathetically on such requests.

Let me end by saying that Her Majesty 's Government are confident that the current stringent export licensing procedures for defence equipment are sufficient to ensure that landmines of the self-destructing or self-neutralising variety are not exported to countries which might use them irresponsibly. However, we are all too aware of the dreadful effects which the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines cause, and therefore we wholeheartedly support and will continue to support international efforts to eradicate this.