Extent to which systematic structure
is in place for meeting the indicative tasks listed, and response
of department
27. Because of the extent to which its work was dominated
by the consequences of the events of 11 September 2001, the Committee
did not attempt to establish a systematic structure for its work
based on the Liaison Committee core tasks.
28. To cope with our heavy workload in the opening
months of 2002, we devised a three-streamed work programme, involving
working through three informal sub-groups for visits within the
UK and informal meetings, but with all Members expected to attend
weekly formal meetings. We decided against using our power to
appoint a formal sub-committee. In the course of our inquiry into
Defence and Security in the UK we took evidence in private on
a number of occasions, and also used informal meetings as a way
of informing ourselves on matters which could not be discussed
publicly. A full list of informal meetings held by the Committee
during 2002 is published at Annex A.[25]
29. We made extensive use of specialist advisors
during 2002, taking advice from 20 experts in the course of the
year. We are grateful to all of them for their help. A list of
the inquiries on which we sought specialist advice, and of those
who assisted us, is published at Annex B.[26]
30. Co-operation with the Ministry of Defence has
generally been good, in terms of the provision of informative
memoranda and Government responses to schedule, and in terms of
the availability of ministerial witnesses. In accordance with
the Resolution of the House of 14 May 2002, we have taken evidence
from each of the four Ministers in the MoD during the course of
2002. We have asked the MoD how they intend to respond to the
duties imposed on them by the Liaison Committee Core Tasks, but
we have not so far received a reply.
16 
