Chapter 4: Summary of Conclusions and
recommendations
65. The Government's intentions as to the role
Parliament should play as the civil war in Syria has escalated
have been unclear. It took some time for the Government to give
a commitment that the House of Commons should vote before any
arms are supplied to the Syrian opposition, and it is unclear
how they intend to involve Parliament should Her Majesty's armed
forces become further engaged in the conflict. (Para 21)
66. Though other Government bodies have important
roles in advising the Cabinet, preparing discussion there and
implementing its decisions, we consider that it continues to be
constitutionally important that the full Cabinet is the ultimate
decision-maker on whether to use armed force overseas. (Para 25)
67. Although the Defence Council possesses potentially
significant legal powers, it is not in practice a meaningful part
of the decision-making apparatus of the Government as regards
the use of armed force overseas. In terms used by Bagehot, it
could be seen as a dignified, rather than efficient, part of the
constitution. (Para 33)
68. The Government should amend the Cabinet Manual
so that it includes a detailed description of their internal arrangements
for advising and deciding on the use of armed force. (Para 35)
69. The legality of a deployment is of overriding
importance. The analysis and conclusions in this report are made
on the basis that a proposed deployment is legal. (Para 41)
70. We share the concerns expressed to us about
the negative effect on the morale and operational independence
of the armed forces of courts scrutinising operational decisions.
(Para 55)
71. The House of Lords is well-placed to debate
the merits of deployment decisions. However, the decision on whether
to approve a deployment decision should be vested in the House
of Commons. (Para 60)
72. Neither primary legislation nor a resolution
should be introduced as a means of formalising the role of Parliament
in approving deployment decisions. (Para 61)
73. It seems that much of the impetus for formalising
Parliament's role is to make a political statement about where
decisions should be taken, rather than to correct deficiencies
in the legal or military process. (Para 63)
74. We conclude that the existing convention—that,
save in exceptional circumstances, the House of Commons is given
the opportunity to debate and vote on the deployment of armed
force overseas—provides the best framework for the House
of Commons to exercise political control over, and confer legitimacy
upon, such decisions. It is flexible, effective and consistent
with the existing structure of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.
Parliamentary control over the Government in this area should
remain a matter of constitutional convention. (Para 64)
| 
