It is no betrayal of our Armed Forces for us to always strive to minimise civilian casualties.
This is true, but the big question should be whether anyone has analysed the capability gap that this legislation may cause.

I personally believe that our commanders would only use this munition if there was no alternative at the time, our military leaders do actually take into account civilian casualities, environmental impact and clean up measures needed.

So you are squarely stacking the blame on politicians eh? Well tell you what. Without politicians, I don't think there is a need for a military as there's no one to give them valid orders. Argue that an officer could? Well, who is he taking his orders from and how do we know he isn't going to be the next junta leader? What gives him the right to anyway without people elected leaders?
No I am squarely stacking the blame on sending our troops into warzones with insufficient equipment on politicians.

Anyway, so you are also saying that cluster bombs are "tools they need to do the job". So why cluster bombs and not some more precise weapon that does not leave a minefield in its wake that could potentially harm your own troops? Nowadays, wars are not about going in, bombing the place "back to the stone age" and go home and leave them to clear up the minefield you left behind. That's not what's called responsibility and if your military isn't cleaning up the mess it made, then the people need to intervene.
What other weapons? Where they available at the time? What was the risks to the troops in using both weapons? What was the risk of civilian casualties? Where was the operation? What was the target? What were the objectives?

Do you know because I don't.

I'm not saying cluster bombs are ideal weapons but unless someone has done all the investigations banning them may well be the wrong decision.

Maybe a timed detonation device that are already in use in other munitions is the way to go, but this will take time.