Select Committee on Defence First Special Report

OTHER ISSUES AND ACTIVITIES

Procedural Reform and Modernisation

36. In our annual report last year we noted that it is now twenty years since the 'new' select committee system was established and that the time had come to review their function and role. We therefore welcome the decision of the Liaison Committee to review their role, powers and resources, and look forward to its Report. We also hope that the external examination of the Hansard Society's Commission on the Scrutiny Role of Parliament, under the Chairmanship of Lord Newton, will generate some new ideas which will be taken up by the House. As we said last year, we do not think that the select committee system is at the final stage of its development. We comment below on the need for a more formal involvement of the committees in the development of legislation at the earliest possible stage, where circumstances allow. We have continued to examine the MoD's modest output of delegated legislation, but we are forced to do this in a context where the House's procedures for scrutiny of delegated legislation remain woefully inadequate. We look forward to the forthcoming Report of the Procedure Committee on this topic.

37. We have also held quasi-confirmation hearings of major public appointments. Again, we believe this role needs developing.

38. The Procedure Committee reported last year on arrangements for scrutiny of the government's expenditure plans.[36] The Committee recommended that—

• all the main documents relating to a department's expenditure plans should be referred to the departmental select committee concerned for a report within a specified time (the Committee recommends sixty days);
• no money should be voted until the departmental committees have reported;
• select committees should have extra resources to enable them to undertake this extra work; and
• select committees should be able to table substantive, amendable, motions relating to the Government's expenditure plans.

The Procedure Committee also commented that—

The challenge is to change the procedures of the House in ways which will increase committees' ability to put public expenditure issues before the House; increase the House's ability to engage with the Government's expenditure plans in a constructive way, but nonetheless ensure that the Government can expect the Supply needed for current expenditure to be granted with no less certainty than at present.[37]

We concur with part of the Committee's conclusions and recommendations, and trust that the government will respond to them positively. However we cannot in all logic accept that more effective Parliamentary scrutiny should allow the Government "no less certainty" that Supply will be granted than as at present. We believe that effective Parliamentary control over the executive remains a distant though desirable objective; and would have wished the Procedure Committee's recommendations had gone further.

Treaties

39. We have also participated in the procedure Committee's examination of the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, and look forward to its Report on that subject in due course. Over the course of this session we ourselves examined the Protocols to the Washington Treaty to bring the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland into membership of NATO. We also took evidence on the OCCAR Convention and reported early in the current Session. We also intend to examine the adapted Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) when it is presented to Parliament.

Legislation

40. In our last annual report[38] we expressed regret that the Landmines Bill had been introduced and passed with such speed as to prevent any select committee scrutiny of its implications. In the Queen's Speech at the beginning of the current Session, the Armed Forces Discipline Bill was announced without prior warning. This seems to us another clear example of exactly the type of legislation which would be appropriate for the kind of pre-legislative scrutiny recommended by the Modernisation Committee in its First Report of this Parliament, and we regret that such an opportunity was once again missed by the government. We will be considering whether to take evidence on the Bill itself in the current Session.

Scrutiny of NDPBs

41. In November, the Public Administration Committee published a substantial report on the accountability of Non-Departmental Public Bodies.[39] In it they commented—

In some cases, quangos have little role in the main activity of a department (the Ministry of Defence is an example) and in these cases oversight of departmental NDPBs would be an unnecessary distraction for select committees.[40]

Given the burdens of our current programme, this statement comes as something of a relief. However, we shall bear in mind the possibility of at some stage finding an opportunity to look at the preservation of the defence heritage, since six out of the seven NDPBs appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence are the Boards of forces museums.

Miscellaneous Matters

42. This year we include far fewer miscellaneous memoranda with this report than last year. Many more of these will be taken in in our forthcoming report on the MoD's Annual Reporting Cycle. They are published with this Report. We would note only that we decided not to examine the rationale for the decisions following the review of the Air Surveillance and Control System (ASACS).[41] We may consider the results in the future. We comment on the announcements about the Military Provost Guard Scheme[42] at paragraph 54 below.

---

36  Sixth Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1998-99, Procedure for Debate on the Government's Expenditure Plans, HC 295 Back

37  ibid, para 13 Back

38  op cit, para 47 Back

39  Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration, Session 1998-99, Quangos, HC 209-I and II Back

40  ibid, para 41 Back

41  See Ev p 1 Back

42  See Ev pp 2 and 3 Back

---

Prepared 16 February 2000