Earlier Committee work
1. In May 2011 we published a Report on Parliament's
Role in Conflict Decisions.[1]
In it we noted the Government's position on this issue:
the Government believes that it is apparent that
since the events leading up to the deployment of troops in Iraq,
a convention exists that Parliament will be given the opportunity
to debate the decision to commit troops to armed conflict and,
except in emergency situations, that debate would take place before
they are committed.[2]
2. The Report also welcomed the commitment of the
Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon William Hague MP, made in March 2011
in the context of military action in Libya, to "enshrine
in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on
military action".[3]
We concurred with the Foreign Secretary's view. There was and
is a need for greater clarity about Parliament's role in decisions
to commit British forces to armed conflict abroad. We called on
the Government, as a first step, to bring forward a draft parliamentary
resolution for consultation with us among others, and for debate
and decision by the end of 2011.[4]
3. The Government's response to our Report was published
in September 2011.[5] It
neither agreed with nor addressed in any detail the recommendations
in our Report. In particular, it stated that the Government could
not commit to following the Committee's suggested approach or
to meeting the timetable we had proposed.[6]
Instead, the Government stated that it hoped "to make progress
on this matter in a timely and appropriate manner".[7]
4. The Government did accept our third recommendation
which called for the Government's Cabinet Manual to be amended
to include the convention that Parliament should have the opportunity
to debate decisions to commit troops to armed conflict, and that
the debate should take place before the troops are committed,
except in emergency situations. The Cabinet Manual now summarises
previous parliamentary involvement in relation to military action
and states that:
In 2011, the Government acknowledged
that a convention
had developed in Parliament that before troops were committed
the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the
matter and said that it proposed to observe that convention except
when there was an emergency and such action would not be appropriate.[8]
5. However, in the period since the publication of
the Government's response to our Report no draft parliamentary
resolution has been forthcoming despite the fact that, as we noted
in our Report, much of the necessary preparatory work in this
respect had already been completed: the previous Government had
proposed a draft parliamentary resolution on war powers in a Green
Paper in 2007 and a White Paper in 2008 which were subject to
extensive Parliamentary scrutiny.[9]
However, the House did not have an opportunity to consider such
a motion before the general election in May 2010. [10]
6. As part of our commitment to monitor progress
on this issue, we wrote to the Foreign Secretary on 10 January
2013 asking for an update on the Government's position and information
on what deliberations had taken place between, and within, Government
Departments on Parliament's role in conflict decisions.[11]
In response, the Foreign Secretary stated:
My view remains, as I set out in my statement
to the House on 21 March 2011: wherever possible, Parliament should
have the opportunity to debate, in advance, the commitment of
UK forces to military action overseas, unless there is an emergency
where such action would not be appropriate. Since my statement,
we have declared and formalised this understanding within the
Cabinet Manual.
I have discussed these issues with my Ministerial
colleagues. Given the complexities involved we have commissioned
work from a number of Departments to help reach agreement on the
way ahead. Once this has concluded, the Government will update
Parliament on next steps. [...][12]
Our view on recent developments
relating to conflict decisions
7. Where Government wishes to consult Parliament
before action then drafting is straightforward. However, the task
of enshrining Parliament's role in law, while still enabling Government
to act quickly and then report afterwards, requires careful drafting.
The absence of any apparent urgency on the Government's part to
move forward on the matter more generally since 2011, when it
made a commitment to "enshrine in law for the future the
necessity of consulting Parliament on military action", has
given us cause for concern. With the exception of changes to the
Cabinet Manual, little, if any, formal progress appears to have
been made by the Government in advancing action on this important
issue. Now is the moment to deliver on the commitment. We echo
the view contained within a timely Report by the House of Lords
Constitution Committee on Constitutional arrangements for the
use of armed force, published in July 2013, which noted that:
The decision to use armed force overseas is one
of the most momentous a Government can make. At present the role
played by Parliament in such decisions varies widely: there is
no standard process by which Parliament becomes involved.[13]
8. We have no view on the rights and wrongs of particular
decisions, including the recent one on Syria; we are concerned
with democratic process only. Hence we welcome the Government's
decision to request the recall of Parliament on 29 August 2013
and to place before the House a substantive motion including a
commitment that "before any direct British involvement in
such action [in Syria] a further vote of the House of Commons
will take place". We also note the Prime Minister's statement
in response to a question about whether the Government would use
the Royal Prerogative to commit UK forces to military action before
there was another vote in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister
stated:
Let me say that the House has not voted for either
motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response
to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting
the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that,
while the House has not passed a motion, the British Parliament,
reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see
British military action. I get that, and the Government will act
accordingly.[14]
Not only did this serve to highlight the important
role of Parliament in conflict decisions, it also showed how the
de facto situation on conflict decisions appears to have outpaced
the legal position.
Next steps: a new inquiry
9. In light of recent developments, we are
launching a new inquiry into 'Parliament's Role in Conflict Decisions'.
Since the Government has a clear, positive position on this we
do not envisage a long inquiry. In order to inform our deliberations,
we recommend that, in its response to our Report, the Government
provide a comprehensive, updated statement of its position on
the role of Parliament in conflict decisions. In particular,
we wish the Government to address what progress had been made
in discussions between Government Departments to implement the
Foreign Secretary's commitment since he last updated our Committee
in February 2013. We also recommend that it precisely details
the specific steps which will now be taken to fulfil the strong
public commitment to enshrine in law the necessity of consulting
Parliament on military action.
1 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Eighth
Report of Session 2010-12, HC 293 Back
2
Ibid, para 3 Back
3
HC Deb, 21 March 2011, col 799 Back
4
HC 293 (2010-12), para 6 Back
5
Parliament's Role in conflict decisions: Government Response
to the Committee's Eighth Report of Session 2010-12, Ninth
Report of Session 2010-12, (HC 1477) Back
6
HC 1477, Letter to the Chair dated 21 July 2011 from Mark Harper
MP, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Cabinet
Office Back
7
HC 1477, (2010-12) para 5 Back
8
The Cabinet Manual: A guide to laws, conventions and rules
on the operation of government, 1st edition, October 2011
para 5.38. www.gov.uk Back
9
The Green and White Papers were scrutinised by the Public Administration
Select Committee and the House of Lords Constitution Committee
as well as by the specially convened Joint Committee on the draft
Constitutional Renewal Bill. For further information see HC 932,
para 2 Back
10
HC 923 (2010-12), para 6 Back
11
Letter from the Chair to the Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon William
Hague MP. See Appendix for full text. Back
12
Letter from the Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon William Hague MP, to
the Chair. See Appendix for full text. Back
13
Second Report of Session 2013-14, HL Paper 46, para 1 Back
14
HC Deb, 29 August 2013, col 1556 Back
|
