General Issues
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Advice to Ministers
51. The Secretary of State went to some lengths to
involve the Committee publicly in the Strategic Defence Review
consultation process, and he and his fellow Ministers have been
assiduous in providing us with information and updates on developments
within the MoD, albeit on their own terms. However, as in the
past, the Committee has had a number of conflicts with the MoD
on the provision of information. Ministers declined to allow us
to see the draft Corporate Plan for the DERA on the grounds that
it constituted 'advice to Ministers'. There was a similar reluctance
to give the Committee information on the internal workings of
the SDR process. We were also refused sight of the report of the
MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser into the appropriate level of longer
term research investment. And only after much toing and froing
was permission given for Assistant Chiefs of Staff to brief the
Committee on issues underlying the SDR. We do not find the use
of the 'advice to Ministers' proviso at all satisfactory. It is
a catch-all category redolent of the worst excesses of the abuse
of the old Official Secrets Act. Its application is arbitrary
and unchallengeable. We intend to pursue these issues in our forthcoming
inquiry into the provision of defence-related information to Parliament,
which we discuss in the next section.
NATO
52. In our Third Special Report, we urged the MoD
to persuade NATO to publish declassified versions of two reports
relating to enlargement costs which had been made available to
us on a confidential basis.[55]
NATO declined to do so.[56]
We regret this, and we shall also pursue the issue of levels of
classification and their appropriate application to documents
in our forthcoming inquiry into the provision of information to
Parliament.
Parliamentary Questions
53. One of the objectives we set ourselves was to
monitor refusals by the MoD to answer Parliamentary Questions
(PQs). On 9 occasions answers were refused on the basis of exemptions
provided for in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information—Exemption
1 was cited 3 times, and Exemptions 2, 2b, 4, 7, 13 and 14 were
each cited once. We will be considering the implications of these
refusals in more detail in our inquiry into the provision of defence-related
information to Parliament.
54. During the session 91 answers failed to provide
some of the information requested on grounds that it was not centrally
held. On a further 29 occasions, no information could be given
on these grounds. Such information included details of the number
of secure bicycle parking spaces at MoD establishments and the
number of foxes killed (and where) on the MoD estate. For the
most part no issues of concern to us were noted, but we will be
monitoring these answer more systematically as part of our forthcoming
inquiry.
GOVERNMENT REPLIES TO REPORTS
55. We raised privately with the MoD the quality
of its replies to our Reports on a number of occasions. On one,
we sought and received an expanded and improved response. We consider
it essential that replies should address seriously the arguments
of our reports and respond substantively to each of our recommendations.
We were pleased to note that the government's response to our
Report on the SDR[57]
represented a step change in quality, and we hope that this improvement
will be sustained into the future. Annex F records government
responses to our recommendations and indicates where there are
gaps. We will use this as a basis for pursuing the Department
in the future, since many of our recommendations require continuing
action. We invite the MoD to comment on this record and propose
any additions they consider appropriate.
INTER-COMMITTEE COOPERATION
56. The Committee held one joint evidence session
with the Foreign Affairs Committee.[58]
We conducted a joint inquiry with the Trade and Industry Committee.[59]
We hope to build further on these initiatives in the current session
by conducting an inquiry jointly with the Foreign Affairs Committee,
the International Development Committee and the Trade and Industry
Committee on the government's promised annual report on Strategic
Export Licences. We noted the need for a cross-departmental approach
to security policy at paragraph 40 above. We shall continue to
urge and offer greater cooperation between departmental committees
along these lines. We believe the provisions in standing orders
for such joint working are under-utilised at present. We also
consider that the provision for concurrent inquiries are somewhat
unwieldy, and could usefully be revisited by the Liaison Committee
and/or the Procedure Committee. We also hope to develop a fruitful
relationship with the Committee of Public Accounts, particularly
in relation to our mutual interest in major defence procurement
projects.
DEBATES
57. All but one of the Committee's reports have been
cited on the Order Paper of the House as relevant to debate in
one way or another, some more than once.
58. There has been some discussion of the allocation
of time available to debate defence and security issues in the
House. The rarity of legislation in this area means that (unlike
say education, social security, criminal justice and public order
and to a lesser extent health and social services) the only occasions
that present themselves for debate on defence matters are normally
one day of the debate on the Loyal Address, two days on the Statement
on the Defence Estimates and one day for each of the Services
on adjournment motions. These last three days (which are a residue
of Supply Days, in other words, which are a sort of 'opposition
time') have been the subject of criticism. They are certainly
less relevant than they once were in a period where the distinctions
between the three Services are of less importance, and where joint
operations, multinational operations and peace support operations
are increasingly the core tasks of the Armed Forces. The Secretary
of State has proposed that they be replaced by a day each devoted
to personnel issues: equipment and procurement issues; and 'defence
in the world'. We welcome and support this change.
59. We pressed hard for a debate in the House on
the enlargement of NATO in the last Session. Eventually a day
was provided, though only a Friday.[60]
We hope that time will be found for a debate on the future of
NATO between the publication of our report on the future of NATO
and the Washington Summit on 23/24 April 1999.
OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES
60. The Committee provided written evidence to the
Procedure Committee's inquiry into financial procedure, and the
Chairman gave oral evidence and supplementary written evidence
to that Committee.[61]
We urged a better integration of the work of departmental select
committees with the financial procedures of the House, and we
await the Committee's Report with interest.
61. The Chairman also submitted evidence on behalf
of the Committee to the Procedure Committee on the Ponsonby Rule.[62]
This inquiry arose from a reference by us to the Leader of the
House of the comments we made in our Report on NATO Enlargement.[63]
We make no further comment in advance of the Procedure Committee's
own report.
RESOURCES
62. For the most part, the resources available to
the Committee have proved adequate to the tasks we have set ourself.
The Committee has five full-time staff members, one of whom is
seconded from the National Audit Office, thus enabling the Committee
to more expertly tackle financial matters. We recommended to the
Procedure Committee the establishment of a Central Resource Accounting
and Budgeting unit within the Committee Office. We also make full
use of our phalanx of Specialist Advisers[64]
as well as the staff of the Library of the House of Commons. We
are indebted to the Royal United Services Institute, at which
we have held several press conferences to coincide with the publication
of our Reports. This innovation, linking Reports with seminars
or talks at the RUSI, has brought our work to the attention to
a wider audience.
63. We believe the overall costs of the Committee
represent a very low price to pay for seeking to hold the MoD
accountable to Parliament, at an annual cost, including staff
costs, transcription costs, travel and publication costs of around
£300,000. This represents around 0.000014% of the annual
defence budget.
55 Third Report, Session 1997-98, NATO Enlargement,
HC 469, paras 53-88 Back
56 Ev
p 17 Back
57 Sixth
Special Report, Session 1997-98, HC 1198 Back
58 See
para 8 Back
59 See
paras 36-37 Back
60 17
July 1998 Back
61 HC
848-i Back
62 This
is the rule relating to the provision of an opportunity to Parliament
to take note of Treaties proposed to be ratified by the government,
see Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings
and Usage of Parliament, 22nd Edition, p 226 Back
63 Third
Report, Session 1997-98, HC 469, NATO Enlargement, paras
105-106 Back
64 cf
para 11 Back
| 
