A World of Difference

Parliamentary Oversight of British Foreign Policy

A Report by Democratic Audit, the A World of Difference Federal Trust and One World Trust 1

A World of Diff erence Parliamentary Oversight of British Foreign Policy

Authors Andrew Blick Brendan Donnelly Jonathan Church Michael Hammer Stuart Weir Claire Wren Edited by Stuart Weir

A Report by Democratic Audit, the Federal Trust and One World Trust Acknowledgements Professor Stuart Weir is Director editor of the New Statesman he The authors would like to thank of Democratic Audit. He is joint founded Charter 88, the movement Graham Allen MP, Lord Alton, author of three democratic audits for democratic reform, in 1988. of the UK, including Democracy Lord Archer of Sandwell, Professor Claire Wren is a Programme under Blair and of other Audit David Beetham, Roger Berry MP, Officer at the One World Trust. books and reports. He was one of Lord Blaker, Stephen Crabb MP, She contributed to Not in Our the authors of the International David Drew MP, Mike Gapes Name and writes on a number of IDEA Handbook on Democracy MP, Rt. Hon. Bruce George MP, governance reform topics for the Assessment and has acted as Philip Hollobone MP, Sir Gerald Trust. Kaufman MP, Dr Todd Landman, a consultant on democracy Glenn McKee, Chris Milner, and human rights in India, Michael Moore MP, Senait Petros, Macedonia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Palestine and Zimbabwe. Ben Rogers, Gavin Strang MP, and He is a former journalist and as Fergus Thomas for their advice and assistance in preparing and researching this report. About the Organisations l In 2005, the three organisa- About the Authors Democratic Audit was set up by tions combined forces to conduct research into parliamentary Brendan Donnelly is Director of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable oversight of Britain’s foreign the Federal Trust. He worked for Trust in 1991 to measure policy. Their findings were the Foreign Office, the European democracy in the UK and published in a joint book, Not Parliament and the Commission developed a system for assessing before serving as a Member of the democracy that is now used widely in Our Name: Democracy and European Parliament from 1994 to around the world. The Audit is Foreign Policy in the UK, by Simon 1999. a research organisation that is Burall, Brendan Donnelly and attached to the Human Rights Stuart Weir, Politico’s 2006. This Jonathan Church is a research Centre, University of Essex, and report is a detailed follow-up of officer at the Federal Trust. has published three major audits that original study. He previously worked for the of UK democracy as well as books European Movement. and reports on social justice in Andrew Blick is research officer the UK, quangos and counter at Democratic Audit. He has terrorism laws and practice. Its conducted political research for director is Professor Stuart Weir. Lord Radice, Professor George The Federal Trust is a think tank Jones and BBC Television. He founded to promote studies in was Secretary to an All-Party the principles of international Group of MPs on the Constitu- relations, international justice and tion for two years. He is author supranational government. Set of People who Live in the Dark up in 1945 on the initiative of Sir (on political advisers) and How to William Beveridge, it has always go to War and has contributed to had a particular interest in the Not in Our Name and a number European Union and Britain’s of Democratic Audit books and place within it. Its director is reports. Brendan Donnelly.

Michael Hammer is Executive The One World Trust was formed Director of the One World Trust in 1951 by the All Party Group for with a background in human World Government in Parliament. rights, conflict transformation and The trust has built up a consider- regional integration and planning able knowledge base about the work in Europe and Africa. He workings and accountability issues Design and cover illustration by Tony Garrett has worked with Amnesty Interna- of many of the major intergovern- Published by One World Trust, 3 Whitehall Court, London SW1A 2EL tional, Conciliation Resources and mental organisations. Its director Printed by Creative Print Group, 262 Water Road, consultants IRE. is Michael Hammer. Wembley HA0 1HX

4 Contents

Introduction

Part 1 Global Security and the Special Relationship

DEVILLING IN THE DETAIL Parliament’s oversight of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; infl uencing the use of cluster bombs; investigating the UK’s complicity in extraordinary rendition

Part 2 European Union business

MAKING EU SCRUTINY EFFECTIVE Parliamentary scrutiny of European legislative proposals; seeking to make government’s negotiations in the EU accountable; mainstreaming European scrutiny and other reforms

Part 3 Confl ict and humanitarian crisis

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT The role of Parliament in oversight of multilateral and bilateral negotiations; assessing the British government’s policy at the United Nations; taking up cases of severe internal confl ict: Chad, Sudan and Zimbabwe;

Part 4 Conclusions and recommendations

THE PROSPECT OF A STRONGER PARLIAMENT The need to strengthen parliamentary oversight; Gordon Brown’s governance proposals evaluated; a package of recommendations.

A World of Diff erence 5 6 Introduction

ritish governments make Minister, ministers and officials imbalance of power between the “foreign policy” as they the power to make foreign policy executive and Parliament, states see fit without ever being without the approval, or even the that “the executive should draw its required to seek effective knowledge, of Parliament. Among powers from the people, through parliamentary or public the decisions and actions that Parliament,” and proposes to approval. The public has the government can take under seek to limit its own power by Bprincipled views about Britain’s prerogative powers and which are placing the most important of these role abroad, on for example, thus outside effective democratic prerogative powers onto a more the use of armed force abroad, control are: formal footing, conferring power on complying with international law, Parliament to determine how they l making war and deploying the the Special Relationship with the are to be exercised in future. 3 armed forces United States, arms exports, EU However, Not in Our Name trade policies, 1 yet the govern- l agreeing treaties and other also drew attention to other means ment’s powers and policies often international agreements by which the government could run counter to the public’s wishes dominate Parliament and limit l partnering the United States – and even those of parliamentar- its scrutiny of policies through and choosing allies ians. MPs have little or no say in restrictions on the release of the government’s decisions over l negotiating within the EU, in official information (which are the whole range of foreign policy. particular on legislative matters most stringent in foreign and In 2006, the three organisa- defence affairs), its control of l playing a role in international tions responsible for this report, parliamentary business and strong decisions on trade or climate published a ground-breaking party discipline over its backbench change study, Not in Our Name: MPs and their loyalty to its Democracy and Foreign Policy in l conducting all forms of actions. We also found that some the UK (Politico’s), that analysed diplomacy of Parliament’s own traditions the nature and extent of the and working practices reinforced l contributing to the policies of government’s domination of the government’s autonomy in all the World Bank, IMF and other foreign policy and Parliament’s areas of policy. international bodies weakness in seeking to maintain The purpose of this report is to oversight of this wide-ranging l playing a military role in Nato take the first study further by way and disparate set of policies and of detailed analysis of Parliament’s l representing the UK on the UN actions. This study identified dealings with the government on Security Council. the significant role that royal matters of foreign policy in the prerogative powers played in l recognising states. course of the single parliamentary protecting the government’s session, 2006-07, which came to In July 2007, the government conduct of foreign affairs from an end in November 2007. Due pledged itself in the green paper, effective parliamentary scrutiny to the great range and number The Governance of Britain, to end and approval. These powers, of policy initiatives and actions a state of affairs which it acknowl- a pre-democratic relic of falling within the vast area of edges is “no longer appropriate in monarchical rule, give the Prime foreign policy, this report focuses a modern democracy.”2 The green its resources on analysing in detail  See the results of an ICM poll for Democratic Audit, paper promises to redress the the Federal Trust and One World Trust, January 2006. specific episodes of scrutiny of Further information from www.myforeignpolicytoo.org or 2 Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm www.icmresearcy.co.uk 770, July 2007.  Op cit.

A World of Difference 7 particular relevance. The general parliamentarians chosen by the of treaties to which the UK is a conclusions to be drawn from Prime Minister. If Parliament is signatory. We assess the value these case studies are no less to make government accountable of the contributions of NGOs, persuasive as a consequence. Part for its external policies, then the think tanks and pressure groups 1 assesses the role of Parliament committees will have to play a and take into account the role of in policies designed to improve central role. We have noted the NGOs, sectional interest groups, global security within the shortcomings of select committees the media and opinion formers. perspective of the Special Rela- in our earlier work, and extend We consider a variety of tionship between Britain and the these conclusions in this report ways in which Parliament could US and taking into account the (they are for example poorly improve its oversight and how UK’s human rights obligations; resourced and their members are government might cooperate. In Part 2 examines parliamentary selected through the party whips). particular, we pay special attention scrutiny of EU legislation and But the committees are important to the role that departmental the government’s approach to for a number of reasons. They take reports and government’s annual EU business more generally; detailed evidence from ministers, policy papers, such as the report and Part 3 inquires into the academic and other experts and on strategic export controls and role of Parliament and MPs in representatives of non-govern- the FCO annual human rights considering the need for humani- mental organisations (NGOs) that reports, could play in raising tarian intervention in Darfur and bring to bear detailed practical Parliament’s game. The Public nations in conflict within the experience. Through such bodies, Service Agreements negotiated parameters of UN policy. Our they provide civil society with an mainly between the Treasury and aim is to measure the influence opportunity to participate in the individual departments contain Parliament and members had on democratic process. Government a detailed set of commitments, government policy during this is required – in theory – to against which committees could period, how it was achieved, what provide meaningful and timely evaluate the performance of the the obstacles were, and how these responses to their reports; they Foreign and Commonwealth obstacles might be removed in operate within a loose framework Office, DFID and the Ministry of future. Finally, in Part 4, we seek of responsibilities, known as the Defence. During this parliamen- to judge how far the reforms that “Core Tasks”; and they strive to tary session, a new set of PSAs, the Governance green paper and attain a non-partisan approach to coming into force in 2008, were subsequent statements set out for their inquiries. being finalised. its “national conversation” with We also monitor other forms of the public may have changed parliamentary activity, especially what actually happened and how where relevant to the case studies far they may democratise Britain’s in this report, including the foreign policy. We consider as activities of individual MPs and well what other changes in law All-Party Parliamentary Groups and practice might be required to (APGs), Parliamentary Questions achieve this democratisation. (PQs), Early Day Motions (EDMs), The select committees in the and ministerial statements; House of Commons, and to a parliamentary debates of various lesser degree in the Lords, are the kinds and Private Members’ Bills; key instruments of parliamentary and more informal activity. We scrutiny of the government. Our assess how Parliament learns primary focus is on the work of the about government policy; and Foreign Affairs Committee and the take into account the politics European Scrutiny Committee, around an issue – for instance the alongside the Liaison Committee policies held by different parties. of select committee chairs in the We examine the role the UK Commons; the Joint Committee on Parliament plays in the European Human Rights, made up of MPs Union, the United Nations and and peers; and the Intelligence the large international and and Security Committee, the regional bodies of which the UK non-parliamentary committee of is a member. We consider the role

8 Part 1 Global Security and the Special Relationship

IN PART 1, WE EXAMINE PARLIA- during 2006-07, binding UK ment’s oversight role in three policies to an “international Devilling in the signifi cant policy areas associated system based on the rule of law”; a with Britain’s commitment to “world safer from global terrorism the “War on Terror” that the and weapons of mass destruction”; detail United Kingdom was pursuing “sustainable development… in close alliance with the United underpinned by…human rights”; States throughout the 2006-07 and increasing “understanding parliamentary session – the of, and engagement with, Islamic ongoing military operations in countries and communities and Iraq and Afghanistan, the use and to work with them to promote regulation of cluster munitions, peaceful political, economic and and the “extraordinary rendition” social reform.” Meanwhile, the by the US of people suspected United Kingdom has stood by the of terrorism. The occupation joint occupation of Iraq with the of Iraq and war in Afghanistan United States, though gradually are the most pressing issues the diminishing its presence in the government has had to deal with south; participated more intensely during the 2006-07 parliamen- in the NATO-led confl ict against tary session, not least because the Taliban in Afghanistan; of the deaths and injuries the cooperated with the US, Pakistan armed forces have sustained. We and other foreign powers over carry out this analysis within the intelligence and law enforcement; perspective of global security (a and continued tacit alliances with more appropriate term than “war countries like Saudi Arabia and on terror”), Britain’s long-standing Uzbekistan where human rights Special Relationship with the abuses have aroused concern in United States and its human rights Parliament and elsewhere. obligations. In its human rights reports, the FCO acknowledges the Strategic oversight and public human rights problems of these opinion nations, listing them as “countries At a strategic level, Parliament of concern”, (though not always has been largely a spectator since robustly enough for members of the historic vote on 18 March the Commons Foreign Affairs 2003 approving the invasion of Committee (FAC). The committee Iraq. Parliament was unable fully called in April for the government to hold government to account to “use its close relationship with over whether it was living up Saudi Arabia, including through to commitments such as those the ‘Two Kingdoms Dialogue,’ to contained in the Foreign and set measurable and time-limited Commonwealth Offi ce’s Public targets for specifi c human rights Service Agreements operative objectives, in particular in the

A World of Diff erence 9 areas of women’s rights, the use of wishes of the public. Asked Special Relationship would be an torture and the application of the by ICM Research who should appropriate area of future activity death penalty.”1 In response the decide Britain’s main foreign for the FAC. 9 So far the FAC has government agreed that it should policy objectives in pursuit of not taken this course, though use its close relationship with British interests abroad, 85 per expert observers have noted the the Saudis to promote improved cent of people in January 2006 difficulties the government has human rights, but while conceding said, “Parliament as a whole”, endured in adhering to the Special that progress seemed slow argued as against 13 per cent for “the Relationship at a time when (in that: “measurable and time- Prime Minister, ministers and Chris Patten’s words) the US has limited targets” should not be set. their advisers”. UK’s deeper gone into “unilateral overdrive” Owing to the “sensitive nature commitment to the Special Rela- and flouted principles of interna- of reform there”, the government tionship and the occupation of tional legality and cooperation said, they could be “counterpro- Iraq during this period also ran The Prime Minister’s ductive and undermine the very counter to public opinion. Two dominance of bilateral foreign reform process.” 2 Similarly the thirds of respondents in the ICM policy through Royal Prerogative FAC called for the UK to consider poll wanted Britain to adopt a powers has been a major obstacle imposing “tougher sanctions” more independent position within to parliamentary scrutiny and against Uzbekistan over its human the Special Relationship; half of influence. 10 Britain’s strong rights record.3 The government the people asked (49 per cent) commitment to the Special replied, “We will continue said that Britain’s foreign policy Relationship during the “War on to argue that the measures should be based on a close and Terror” and the wars in Iraq and should reflect the response of equal association with both the Afghanistan were driven by Tony the Uzbek Government to the European Union and the United Blair who, in 2001, introduced EU’s concerns”.4 The fact is that States, 22 per cent said it should structural changes to tighten his Parliament is unable to alter be on a close association with the grip on foreign policy, commanded the basic strategic approach of EU and only 7 per cent on such an the cabinet and until early 2004 policies which are driven by the association with the US.7 possessed great political authority. Special Relationship with the In Not in Our Name, we Parliament holds ministers to US and which thus dictate the described how the Special Rela- account through Parliamentary government’s reluctance to press tionship, the centrepiece of UK Questions, debates and select these foreign nations on human foreign and defence policy since committee scrutiny. But when the rights abuses, or even to influence 1945, had evolved to become Prime Minister is driving policy, aspects of these policies, evident an unspoken and unquestioned Parliament has less purchase. for example in the unwillingness “treaty” with the UK and how Prime Minister’s Question Time is to criticise Israel over the dispro- Parliament and the major parties a knockabout occasion for point- portionate effects of the invasion had shared in the elite consensus scoring, not serious discussion. of southern Lebanon in 2006 on about its benefits for this country.8 The twice-yearly sessions that its inhabitants.5 As Sir Gerald The Foreign Affairs Committee the Prime Minister holds with Kaufman MP told us “I don’t did produce a rolling programme the Commons Liaison Committee believe the House of Commons of six reports on the “War on (at which the chairs of all select has got the tiniest influence Terror” after 2002 which referred committees question him) whatsoever” on UK policy towards to UK/US bilateral relations, but provided the only opportunity Israel. 6 did not assess the nature or extent to probe Blair on the Special Parliament’s weakness on of the Special Relationship; in an Relationship and global security, major foreign policy issues interview with us, Lord Anderson, but as a host of issues arise and contrasts strongly with the then the FAC chairman, agreed time is limited, Blair proved able that an investigation into the to side-step searching questions  Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights Annual Report 2006, HC 269, 29 April 2007. 7 In this poll for Democratic Audit, the Federal Trust from MPs like James Arbuthnot 2 Annual Report on Human Rights: Response of the and One World Trust, ICM Research interviewed a random and Malcolm Bruce on “the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Cm 727, June 2007). sample of 007 adults aged 8+ by telephone between  FAC, op cit.  - January 2006. Interviews were conducted across propaganda battle for Western  Annual Report on Human Rights, op cit. the country and the results were weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council 9 Op cit.  See for instance: Foreign Affairs Committee, Global and abides by its rules. Further information at www. Security: The Middle East, HC 6, 2 July 2007. 0 See for instance: O’Malley, E., “Setting Choices, icmresearch.co.uk Controlling Outcomes: The Operation of Prime Ministerial 8 Burall, S., Donnelly, B., and Weir, S., (eds), Not in Our Influence and The UK’s Decision to Invade Iraq,” British 6 Interview with Sir Gerald Kaufman MP, 8 October Name: Democracy and Foreign Policy in the UK, Politico’s, Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 9, 2007. 2006. 2007.

10 values in the Islamic countries” Parliamentary influence on and the global security agenda: or the shifting reasons advanced controversial issues cluster munitions; “extraordi- to justify the invasions of Iraq and In Part 1, we monitor parliamen- nary rendition”, and the wars Afghanistan that they could not tary oversight of controversial in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 11 follow up. issues where the government’s Israeli Defence Force invasion policies are shaped in different of the Lebanon of summer 2006  House of Commons, Oral Evidence, 6 February and 8 June 2007. ways by the Special Relationship generated substantial parliamen-

Table 1 Parliament’s oversight of global security and the Special Relationship, 2006-07 Issue Parliamentary activity Other activity Outcome Successful oversight?

Ongoing operations Initial operation had Channel 4/Foreign Partial withdrawal from Lack of strategic in Iraq with rising begun covertly before Policy Institute Iraq southern Iraq only after deal oversight; no full casualties and parliamentary vote in 2003; Commission with US. UK troops likely to committee or inquiry resistance to UK Foreign Affairs Committee; be present in Iraq beyond into invasion and its presence Defence Committee; Joint US Presidential elections in aftermath established, Committee on Human 2008. despite demands from Rights investigation of opposition; Defence prisoner mistreatment; PQs, Committee can only debates, EDMs; no parlia- study ‘instrument’ of mentary consensus policy, not formation of policy; Prime Minister’s initial statement about troop reductions not made in House

Ongoing operations Defence Committee Inquiry; Amnesty International UK presence continues No vote ever held in Afghanistan with FAC interest in human rights and Human Rights on initial invasion or rising casualties aspects; PQs, debates; broad Watch express concern changes to mission and concerns about parliamentary consensus about human rights parameters; Lack of clarity of expanding about UK presence. issues strategic oversight mission.

Cluster bombs and Foreign Affairs (FAC) and Report by Handicap The government withdraws FAC/ Quadripartite missiles kill and Quadripartite committees; International; campaigns “dumb” cluster munitions committee coordina- maim civilians, but PQs; EDMs; All-Party by the Campaign from service and breaks with tion – assisted by are not yet outlawed Parliamentary Landmine against the Arms Trade; US to sign Oslo Declaration split in government by specific interna- Eradication Group; Private evidence submitted to against their use, but decides – may have influenced tional convention. Members’ Bills; debates. Parliament by Amnesty to keeps “smart” cluster outcome. Challenge The UK armed forces and Human Rights munitions until the middle to official figures on hold and use these Watch; broadsheet of next decade. munitions failure munitions. media interest. issued by FAC

Allegations that the FAC; All-Party Parliamentary Inquiries by the Council The government gives Main investigation UK was complicit Group on Extraordinary of Europe and European evasive answers to questions carried out by non- in the US practice Rendition; PQs; EDMs; Parliament; strong about making UK airports parliamentary ISC; but of “‘extraordinary debates. investigative television and airspace available parliamentary activity rendition” of reports and broadsheet for CIA rendition flights. including by APPG terrorist suspects press interest; Liberty’s Possibility that information means government (and thus also in request for a police supplied by UK agencies has now knows it is under their torture in investigation; Intel- contributed to renditions scrutiny custody). ligence and Security by US. Poor record keeping Committee (ISC) inquiry makes it difficult to establish and report. the hard facts

The government FAC; Quadripartite UN investigation Government response yet to FAC issued direct rules that the Israeli Committee; PQs into the actions of appear challenge to actions in south the Israeli Defence government; Lebanon in 2006 Force; submissions by succeeded in getting were not Amnesty and Human minister to agree that Rights Watch to FAC immediate ceasefire “disproportionate” about imbalance in UK could have worked and refuses government reports; UK to demand an Working Group on arms immediate ceasefire. exports; campaign and The UK exports arms evidence submission to to Israel in spite of Parliament by CAAT. the controversy over the IDF’s actions.

A World of Difference 11 tary interest during the 2006-07 has never voted on the operation media by taking the initiative session, but the actual incident in Afghanistan. outside Parliament; due no doubt itself fell outside our calendar. By the outset of the parlia- also to the relative paucity of Nonetheless we include reference mentary session it was clear that news during August, he received to it in the table below. The point the strategy of the allies in Iraq considerable media coverage, of choosing these case studies is was under pressure, given the and probably much more than to explore the theory that while increased sectarian and terrorist he would have attained from a Parliament is not equipped to violence there. In the south, parliamentary exchange. He wrote hold government to account on British forces were subject to an open letter on 22 August to strategic issues, it is generally unrelenting attack from local Shia Gordon Brown, calling for a rapid better at detailed scrutiny. We forces, prompting doubts about withdrawal from Iraq to enable have chosen areas of controversy its peace-keeping role in Basra greater focus on Afghanistan. He where there has been parliamen- among the UK armed forces. At wrote, “What is being achieved by tary and other opposition to the the same time the Special Air the continuing British presence government position, not because Service (SAS) was engaged, [in Iraq]? Our troops are severely we see the executive-legislature along with other special forces, in restricted in what they can do and relationship as one of conflict, Baghdad, “facing its most severe they are subject to unreasonable but because such important challenge since it was set up risks.” The British contingent issues give us a good measure of during the second world war”. 12 there had been cut by 500 troops Parliament’s ability to influence Sir Richard Dannatt, who became in July when the army also government and modify policy, Chief of Staff in August 2006, withdrew to Basra airport. Sir and to weigh the strength of the gave an interview to the Daily Menzies noted the “persistent instruments at its disposal. We Mail on 13 October 2006 in which reports that there will be a recognise of course that there he appeared to argue that British reduction in the number of British is no single parliamentary view troops should leave Iraq, since forces deployed to Iraq.” on such subjects, but another their very presence was provoking He received a detailed measure of success is to ask how the violence. With Gordon Brown response from Gordon Brown on far Parliament is able to focus becoming premier in the summer 28 August setting out the reasons attention on issues that matter to of 2007, there were briefly signs why he would not “abandon” the public. that the relationship between the Iraq. Again this was more than Table 1 on the preceding page UK and the US – including over might have been expected provides an overview of parlia- Iraq – might not be as close. At the from a standard parliamentary mentary involvement in the four same time the security position approach.13 Sir Menzies argued key areas. in Basra was deteriorating, with that the letter “could have been British forces under increased written by his predecessor” Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan attack. One of the concerns On 2 October following a In 2006-07, British forces were motivating mainstream critics of meeting with the Iraqi Prime still involved in two major the UK presence in Iraq was that Minister Gordon Brown military conflicts with a direct it did not enable a proper focus announced that a further 500 bearing on global security and on the operation in Afghanistan. would be brought back to the the Special Relationship: in There was more of a consensus UK before Christmas. But well Iraq, where British troops were around the need for this action, informed sources were stating stationed in Basra and special though there were concerns about that a “significant force will have forces were active in the north; the clarity of mission parameters. to remain indefinitely”. Mark and Afghanistan, where UK troops The position of British troops Urban of the BBC stated that “in had just been sent to reinforce became increasingly dangerous, fact the British army is planning the Nato operation in Helmand with casualties accelerating from for a presence there for the next province. As we showed in Not January 2006 onwards. two years...[the US] will be more in Our Name, parliamentary During August with Parliament or less satisfied.”14 Brown had oversight of both operations has in recess, the then Liberal made his first statement during been flawed. Military operations Democrat leader Sir Menzies the recess, when one had been against Iraq had begun covertly Campbell gained substantial before Parliament was given a vote  BBC News, “Letter from PM on UK forces”, 28 August 2 Sunday Times, “Secret war of the SAS”, 6 September 2007. on the invasion and Parliament 2007.  BBC Radio , World at One, 2 October 2007.

12 scheduled for the following week against which the MOD had accountability. The MOD does in the House, running counter to assessed performance, or at least not make provision for the cost his previously stated intentions summaries thereof, on the grounds of military operations in its Main to use Parliament as the primary that providing it “would raise too Estimates on the grounds that outlet for official announcements high a risk of inhibiting the free they are difficult to predict at (though Parliament was not sitting and frank provision of advice”. the beginning of the financial at this point). On 8 October he The committee complained: “We year and used to wait until the informed the House that the strongly regret the MoD’s refusal spring supplementary estimates number of troops would be cut to to supply us even with a classified in February before presenting 2,500 by the spring. summary of the information estimated costs. This approach against which it assesses the meant that the government was Oversight of military supply and success of its military operations. spending money without the prior performance This makes it impossible for us to approval of Parliament. In March Public Service Agreements assure the House of the validity 2006, the Defence Committee and associated departmental of its assessment [that military pressed the government to include objectives, negotiated between objectives are being met].”16 estimates in the Main Estimates, the Treasury and government The Prime Minister’s pledge with room for contingency. departments, set annual plans to improve access to official The government moved the and objectives for the departments information (see table, page 50) estimates for operations to the that, as we argue fully in Part may bring such refusals to give winter estimates in November 4, ought to form a major part information to an end, but the 2006. Noting that the FCO of the framework for parlia- failure to provide significant makes provision for the cost of mentary oversight and scrutiny information in this and other Balkan operations in the Main through select committees. The cases suggests that the new Public Estimates, the Defence Committee government’s white paper, The Service Agreements announced in called in December 2006 for the Governance of Britain, proposes October 2007 may well not be the government to give estimates to develop parliamentary scrutiny route to enhanced oversight that for the costs of the two wars in by giving the House of Commons they could be. Yet PSA 30 sets out the Main Estimates: “Military the opportunity also to debate a significant 28-page “Delivery operations are by their nature departmental objectives on the Agreement” for a joined-up unpredictable [but] . . . the MoD floor of the House (see table, strategy led by the FCO, with will undoubtedly have made page 50).15 During this period, the MOD and DFID involvement, to internal planning assumptions Ministry of Defence was required “Reduce the impact of conflict about the costs of the operations by an objective in its Public through enhanced UK and inter- in Iraq and Afghanistan and we Service Agreement to “Achieve national efforts”. Indicator 2, believe these should be shared success in the military tasks which is described as “Reduced with Parliament.” 17 that we undertake at home and impact of conflict in specific abroad”. In its Annual Report for countries and regions” includes The UK presence in Iraq 2005-6, published in the previous detailed sections on objectives in The invasion and occupation of session, the MOD had claimed Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as Iraq has never achieved the parlia- that on aggregate it was meeting for the Arab/Israeli conflict and mentary consensus that is usual its strategic objectives. But the Lebanon). There is real scope here in the case of wars. Though the Commons Defence Committee for Parliament to play a valuable majority of Labour and Conserva- complained in December 2006 scrutiny role. tive MPs have supported the war, that the government gave “no During 2006-07 the Commons Labour MPs are severely split information of the performance Defence Committee drew and the Liberal Democrats, Plaid indicators against which it [the attention to another problem with Cymru and the Scottish National MOD] makes this judgment”. The parliamentary oversight of these Party have been opposed to it from government refused a request engagements. Granting supply the outset and throughout the from the committee for access to is the most basic parliamentary session urged rapid withdrawal the quarterly reports from field function and has been a historic from Iraq on the government. The commanders and military staff lever for achieving executive

7 Defence Committee, Costs of operations in Iraq and  Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 6 Defence Committee, Ministry of Defence Annual Afghanistan: Winter Supplementary Estimate 2006-07, HC 770, July 2007. Report and Accounts 200–06, HC 6,  December 2006. 29, 7 December 2006.

A World of Difference 13 opposition parties, including the is confined to scrutiny of the allegations of torture and inhuman Conservatives, also maintained the MOD, which is as the committee treatment carried out by UK pressure begun in 2003 for a full chair, James Arbuthnot, put it to troops in Iraq. This inquiry is parliamentary inquiry into the war. us, simply the “instrument” of part of a revised interpretation of But Parliament has been unable policy that is formed (formally at its function; the committee now even to undertake a strategic least) by the FCO. On 21 June aims to respond quickly to topical review of the ongoing conflicts the Defence Committee began an issues. The committee had already there. Conservative MP Douglas investigation into “UK operations questioned the Attorney General, Hogg tabled an Early Day Motion in Iraq”, which is still taking then Lord Goldsmith, on this on 22 November 2006 to establish place. Because the Defence subject on 26 June.20 The JCHR a committee of at least seven Committee took on Iraq (and inquiry, not yet complete, focuses MPs to “advise this House on Afghanistan) during this session, on the activities of those further up the present situation in Iraq and the Foreign Affairs Committee the chain of command; its inquiry on what policies should now be was presumably precluded from paper includes questions on the pursued by the Government.” His initiating the wider inquiry, issue of information on human model was the cross-party US Iraq raising once again the need for rights standards; the provision Study Group, set up by Congress joined-up working between select of legal advice; advice provided in March 2006, to advise on US committees. In April 2007 the by the Attorney General; and strategy in Iraq and the region. committee criticised the Foreign government policy regarding the But such an initiative from within Office for underplaying in its European Convention on Human Parliament, however desirable, Human Rights Annual Report 2006 Rights and its role in Iraq.21 is unlikely ever to succeed in the the rise in sectarian violence in During this session there were face of the of the government’s Iraq. 18 It also expressed concerns 89 Commons written questions inbuilt Commons majority. Finally, in April about the sharp rise in referring to “Basra”; and 28 in the in January 2007, Channel 4 and executions (including that of Lords. There were no less than 167 the Foreign Policy Centre (a New Saddam Hussein), claims of unfair references to “Basra” in Commons Labour-friendly think tank) held trials and allegations that some debates; and 112 in the Lords. their own televised cross-party Iraqi ministers and ministries strategy review with Lord Ashdown were involved in human rights The mission in Afghanistan in the chair. abuses. The committee asked the There is greater parliamentary Meanwhile, select committees government to “redouble efforts to consensus around UK engagement undertook more detailed work. On promote respect for the rule of law in Afghanistan. Nevertheless 11 January 2007 the Defence and and for human rights in organs there was much parliamentary Foreign Affairs committees held of the Iraqi state.”. In July, the interest in the operation. There a joint evidence session with the FAC expressed doubts that the US were 104 Commons written PQs Foreign Secretary and officials, troop “surge” would succeed in referring to Helmand; and 53 in to discuss the US “troop surge” the absence of agreement between the Lords; 109 references were strategy then being adopted.. Iraqi politicians and urged the made to Helmand in Commons On 7 February the Defence government to clarify its objectives debates; and 49 in the Lords. In Committee announced an inquiry in Iraq and how their attainment its response to the government’s into “UK Defence: Commitments could be measured. It also Human Rights Annual Report and Resources” to investigate asked for the evidence pointing 2006 the FAC expressed concern “how the demands on, and the towards the Iranian government’s about “the lack of progress in structures of, the Armed Forces complicity in terrorism in Iraq achieving basic human rights have changed over the past ten and welcomed signs that the in large sections of Afghan years”; and to explore “whether US was accepting the UK view society” and recommended current commitments are that engagement with Iran was that the government “provide sustainable without an increase in necessary.19 statistics on incidence of rape, resources”. In other words it was On 8 August the Joint honour killings and other abuses to approach the issue of Britain’s Committee on Human Rights against women in Afghanistan.” military commitments from the announced an inquiry into 20 See: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamen- tary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/ perspective of “overstretch” and 8 Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights Annual jchr080807pn6.cfm resources – a tangential approach Report 2006, HC 269, 29 April 2007. 2 See: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamen- 9 Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Security: The tary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/ dictated by the fact that its remit Middle East, HC 6, 2 July 2007. jchr080807pn6.cfm

14 The committee also requested studies is that non-governmental 30 years.26 The real figure may be information from the government organisations (NGOs) and the as many as 100,000 because of about compensation paid to media often play a crucial role under-reporting in countries such civilian victims of bombing.22 The in alerting parliamentarians as Afghanistan and Chechnya. government in response agreed and select committees to urgent The report received substantial with the committee’s concerns issues, informing them and broadsheet coverage in the UK.27 but described the difficulties in supplementing their work (see International attention was drawn providing exact statistics about further, page 18). Evidence to to their deadly effect when the mistreatment of women. It referred select committees from Amnesty Israeli Defence Force used them the committee to the website of the International and other NGOs widely in south Lebanon during “Womankind” charity (http://www. and media coverage on cluster its campaign against Hezbollah womankind.org.uk) where it could munitions (assisted by leaks in July and August 2006; and find the best description of the from within Whitehall) seems opposition to their use mounted trends. not only to have strengthened when in late January 2007 the US The Defence Committee Parliament’s response but also State Department criticised Israel argued in July that if the Nato to have influenced the govern- for misusing US-manufactured deployment in Afghanistan is to be ment’s approach to their use and cluster bombs in the invasion of a success in denying the Taliban regulation. This suggests that Lebanon and sent a preliminary and Al Qaeda an environment in NGO research and lobbying and classified report to Congress.28 which to operate and creating the investigative media reporting There was substantial basis for a flourishing democracy, filtered through Parliament can parliamentary activity around the “size and strength’ of the impact on government policy on the issue of cluster munitions force deployed “must be very defence and global security at during 2006-07, including two great.” The committee said that least at a micro level, even if it Private Members’ Bills, the first the “mission to bring stability leads to a divergence between UK introduced in the Lords by Lord to Helmand” required “a and US policy. Dubs, the second by Nick Harvey, long-term military and humani- Cluster munitions can broadly the Liberal Democrat shadow tarian commitment if it is to be defined as air-carried bombs defence minister, in the Commons. be successful. We recommend or ground-launched missiles that Similar in form, they sought to that the Government clarify its eject numerous sub-munitions ban the development, production, planning assumptions for the over a wide target area.24 They possession and use of certain UK deployment to Afghanistan are designed for use against troop types of cluster munitions. Both and state the likely length of the formations, but once the sub- bills were short-lived, but served deployment beyond the summer of munitions are on the ground, they to raise the issue. It was also kept 2009.” The committee noted that can kill or maim civilians for an alive by an adjournment debate the “consent of the people living indeterminate period in the same in the Commons on 23 November in Helmand province will not be way as landmines if they have not 2006; 123 written Parliamentary gained through the deployment of detonated or self-disarmed. But Questions in the Commons and superior military force alone. Once unlike landmines, they are not 15 in the Lords; five Early Day security is established, it is vital prohibited by a specific interna- Motions; and 47 references to that development projects follow tional convention. Yet a report, The “cluster munitions” in Commons swiftly.” It expressed the concern Fatal Footprint: The Global Human debates and 103 in the Lords. that the government was not Impact of Cluster Munitions, 25 Members of the All-Party communicating “key messages” from Handicap International in Landmine Eradication Group in to the British public about the November 2006 estimated that the last session made a collective purpose of its operations in 98 per cent of the victims of these Afghanistan effectively enough.23 weapons have been civilians, most 26 Handicap International has since produced a follow-up report, Circle of Impact: The Fatal Footprint of them children; and that 11,000 of Cluster Munitions on People and Communities in Cluster bombs and missiles such deaths and injuries have May 2007, see http://www.handicap-international.org. uk/pdfs/Circle_of_Impact_Handicap_International_ One of the significant insights been documented over the past May_2007.pdf 27 Financial Times, “Civilians hit most by cluster that have emerged from these bombs”,  November 2006; Independent, “Study says almost all cluster bomb victims are children”,  November 22 Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights Annual 2 See: http://www.handicap-international.org. 2006; Guardian, “Civilians main cluster bomb victims”,  Report 2006, HC 269, 29 April 2007. uk/page_7.php November 2006. 2 Defence Committee, UK Operations in Afghanistan, 2 http://www.handicap-international.org.uk//files/ 28 Guardian, “US questions Israel’s use of cluster bombs HC 08,  July 2007. Fatal%20Footprint%20FINAL.pdf in a rare rebuke”, 0 January 2007.

A World of Difference 15 decision at a meeting in June 2006 with the United States, China and that oversees strategic export to prioritise the issue of cluster Russia, was obstructing Norway’s controls). Stanley asked: “Is munitions.29 attempt to agree a treaty which the British Government’s policy In November 2006 a letter from would ban cluster munitions. objective a total ban on cluster by Hilary Benn MP, then Inter- They were arguing that the use bombs of all types or just a ban national Development Secretary, of cluster munitions should be on ‘dumb’ cluster bombs?” The to the Foreign and Defence discussed within the framework of minister replied that Britain still Secretaries was leaked to the conventional weapons – a means had “to reach a more detailed press, the Sunday Times noting (in Porteous’s words) of “making definition with allies in the Oslo that “one of the Labour ministers sure it does not happen – at least process”. 34 Two weeks later vying for the deputy leadership not any time soon.” 32 On 25 Stanley pressed Margaret Beckett has broken ranks by challenging January, Margaret Beckett, the on the same question at the British and American military Foreign Secretary, confirmed to committee. She saw a difference forces in Iraq to stop using the House that this was Britain’s between cluster munitions with cluster bombs that kill and maim negotiating position.33 a greater capacity to be used in a civilians.” 30 Benn argued that But then in February the more targeted way, or which cluster bombs were “essentially UK surprisingly supported the lose their capacity perhaps equivalent to landmines”, which Norwegian proposal made at after time to inflict that kind were banned by the 1999 Ottawa a meeting of 49 states at Oslo of injury [unacceptable harm Treaty. He complained that their (which was boycotted by the to civilians], and others which high failure rate and untargeted US, Israel and Russia). The do not, which having been use around the world meant Oslo Declaration bound states dropped just stay there as a that they have a very serious to conclude by 2008 “a binding potential lethal weapon under humanitarian impact, pushing at instrument that will…prohibit all circumstances.35 the boundaries of international the use, production, transfer and humanitarian law. It is difficult stockpiling of cluster munitions Five days later, on 20 then to see how we can hold so that cause unacceptable harm to March, Des Browne, the prominent a position against land civilians”. The new convention Defence Secretary, revealed mines, yet somehow continue would further establish a in a Written Answer that the to advocate that use of cluster framework for assisting the victims government was withdrawing munitions is acceptable. of cluster munitions. Signatories “dumb” cluster munitions from The MOD and Foreign Office to the declaration undertook to service immediately, but would made it known in the media that deal with the problem at national retain those with “inbuilt self- they disagreed with Benn’s view, level. The reversal of the govern- destructing or self-deactivating 31 but on 24 January 2007 the ment’s position under parliamen- mechanisms”.36 Foreign Affairs Committee gave tary pressure was not however In April the Foreign Affairs the issue additional momentum, absolute. Cluster munitions may Committee urged the government taking evidence from Tom be either “dumb” or “smart”, to work for an international Porteous, of Human Rights Watch and the Oslo wording, “cluster agreement to ban all cluster who said: “Cluster munitions munitions that cause unacceptable munitions in its report on the endanger civilians, because they harm to civilians” is generally government’s Annual Human leave sub-munitions over a very regarded as meaning the “dumb” Rights Report 2006. The FAC wide area and there are many variety. On 1 March the Conserva- observed that “the test of whether duds among them, so even after tive MP Sir John Stanley pressed a munition causes ‘unacceptable a conflict has ended, for example the International Development harm to civilians’ is not only the in Lebanon, you will get civilian minister on Britain’s position weapon’s capability, but how casualties” from the “duds” left at an evidence hearing of the it is used. Any bomb dropped behind. He also informed the Quadripartite Committee (a joint on a civilian target may cause committee that the UK, along committee of the FAC, Defence, unacceptable harm.” Conse- International Development and quently the FAC welcomed the

29 See: http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/news. the then-DTI select committees asp?id=22 .  House of Commons Committees on Strategic Export 0 Sunday Times, “Benn slams cluster bombs”,  Controls (Quadripartite Committee), Strategic Export November 2006. 2 Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights Annual Controls: 2007 Review, HC 7, 7 August 2007.  Guardian, “Cabinet Minister calls for ban on cluster Report 2006, HC 269, 29 April 2007.  Ibid. bombs”, 6 November 2006.  HC Written answers, Col. 97W, 2 January 2007. 6 HC Debates, col. 7WS, 20 March 2007.

16 government decision to attend withdraw “smart” cluster bombs, auspices of the Council of Europe; the Oslo conference and to sign provided that the forces had an one of which was conducted the declaration. But it asked the operational alternative for use by the Secretary General of the government to clarify which to against massed troops.39 In Council of Europe, the other by cluster munition types were to September 2007 groups such as the Legal Affairs and Human be retained in service and for Amnesty International queried the Rights Committee of the Council’s how long, and enquired whether MOD decision to reclassify one of Parliamentary Assembly.43 In June “the Government has any plans its weapons systems, the Hydra 2007, the Swiss Senator Dick to work toward an early inter- CRV-7 to escape the ban.40 Marty who led this second inves- national agreement to ban all tigation published a report stating cluster munitions.” The FAC also Extraordinary rendition that: requested that the 2007 human Rendition – the informal, inter- What was previously just a set rights report should include an national transfer of suspects to of allegations is now proven: assessment of the impact on custody – was practised by the large numbers of people have civilians of cluster munitions. US before 11 September 2001 but been abducted from various In its response the government has since become a key part of locations across the world and identified the artillery round with its “War on Terror.” In September transferred to countries where self-destructing sub-munitions 2006 President George W. Bush they have been persecuted and that would remain in service. announced that the Central where it is known that torture As it would be retained until Intelligence Agency (CIA) has is common practice. approximately the middle of the operated a network of secret intel- next decade, the government said ligence centres to which terrorist Marty’s report raised a it was not possible to work for an suspects were taken against their specific concern about the UK’s early international agreement to will. Rendition is not defined involvement. His committee had ban all cluster munitions. 37 in law but the UK government received “concurring confirma- The FAC kept up the pressure. frequently describes it as the tions” that US agencies have used Its report Global Security: The “informal transfers of individuals the island of Diego Garcia – the Middle East, published in July in a wide range of circumstances, legal responsibility of the UK – in 2007, stated in a discussion of including the transfer of terrorist the “ ‘processing’ of high-value the conflict in the Lebanon the suspects.” The term “extraordinary detainees.” Britain had “readily previous summer that the failure rendition” is similarly not a legal accepted ‘assurances” from the US rate of both “dumb” and “smart” definition, it simply applies to authorities, denying this evidence, cluster bombs could be much renditions, according to the FCO, “without ever independently or higher than the government’s “where it is alleged that there is transparently inquiring into the estimates of 6 per cent and 2.3 a risk of torture or mistreatment.” allegations itself, or accounting per cent respectively; as high 41 The UK position (as iterated, to the public in a sufficiently as 30 per cent in the case of for instance, in the FCO Human thorough manner.” 44 “dumb” weapons, and 10 per Rights Annual Report 2006)42 is A draft report to the European cent for “smart” ones. The FAC that it does not use rendition Parliament in February 2007 pressed the government to state to bring suspects to face legal from a temporary committee whether it accepted these revised proceedings in this country. on rendition contained further figures and if so “how it justifies But the government maintains circumstantial evidence of continuing to permit UK armed that rendition is not necessarily British complicity in the practice. forces to hold such munitions”. unlawful and that each case The report expressed “serious 38 In August the Quadripartite should be judged on the facts. concern about the 170 stopovers Committee congratulated the There has been a variety of made by CIA-operated aircraft government on its support for a investigations into extraordinary at UK airports, which on many ban on “dumb” cluster bombs and rendition by US agencies at occasions came from or were its commitment to end their use, European level, two under the bound for countries linked with but also asked the government to extraordinary rendition circuits 9 House of Commons Committees on Strategic Export Controls (Quadripartite Committee), op cit. 7 Annual Report on Human Rights 2006: Response  For an overview of Council of Europe work in of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth 0 See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/ this area go to: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/ Affairs, Cm 727, June 2007. story/0,,272,00.html Events/2006-cia/ . 8 Foreign Affairs Committee, Global Security: The  http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hr_report2006.pdf  http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/ Middle East, HC 6, 2 July 2007. 2 http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hr_report2006.pdf Doc07/edoc02.pdf .

A World of Difference 17 and the transfer of detainees” status of rendition”, arguing that on government responses to and deplored “the stopovers at it was illegal under domestic their reports, the FAC did not UK airports of aircraft which have and international law because it immediately draw attention to the been shown to have been used bypassed judicial and administra- inadequacy of this answer. by the CIA, on other occasions, tive due process and typically Beyond the select committee for…extraordinary renditions.” involved “multiple human rights system, an All-Party Parliamentary The report also criticised the violations”. Amnesty cited the UN Group on Extraordinary Rendition, British government for not Convention for the Protection of comprising more than 50 MPs cooperating properly with the all Persons from Enforced Disap- and peers, held evidence sessions, committee, while thanking the pearance, unanimously adopted produced reports and obtained All-Party Parliamentary Group at the UN on 13 November 2006, significant media coverage. In on Extraordinary Renditions “for and criticised the government for May 2007 this ad-hoc committee its work and for providing the being slow to answer questions proposed a “measure” (i.e., a set temporary committee delegation about rendition and for failing of procedures and principles) to London with a number of adequately to investigate the to address concerns around highly valuable documents.” use of UK airspace and airports Britain’s role, that would ensure Craig Murray, the former UK by CIA-chartered aircraft known that the rights of people being Ambassador to Uzbekistan who to have taken part in rendition. transferred were safeguarded and was driven out of his post for The government should launch that the UK acted in accordance challenging human rights abuses a thorough and independent with its international and there, was also thanked for “his investigation into the use of UK domestic obligations.52 Further, very valuable testimony” on the airspace and airports to facilitate there were five written PQs on exchange of intelligence obtained rendition.49 “extraordinary rendition” in the under torture and for providing In its analysis of the govern- Commons; and five in the Lords a copy of FCO legal advice on ment’s Human Rights Annual that tended to elicit the same torture.45 Report 2006 the FAC stated that basic statement of policy – that In the UK, Liberty has argued “it is arguable that refuelling the UK would not facilitate it.53 that rendition flights would an aircraft immediately before In Commons debates, there were violate a variety of domestic laws or after its use in a rendition nine references to “extraordinary covering the prohibition of torture; amounts to facilitating rendition.” rendition”, and as many as 56 aiding and abetting torture and 50 The committee recommended in the Lords. Tory MP Andrew conspiracy to torture; false impris- the government to ask the US to Tyrie initiated a Westminster Hall onment; and kidnap. In June 2007 confirm whether aircraft used in debate on rendition, held on 26 Michael Todd, Chief Constable rendition operations had called at June. In the debate Tony Baldry, of Manchester Police, wrote to airfields in the UK or its Overseas a Conservative MP, referred to Liberty to inform it that that there Territories and to “clearly state “the very strong suspicion that was at this stage no basis for a its practice.” 51 The government US flights are rendering prisoners police inquiry. Liberty denounced replied that there was no new through UK airspace” 54; while the conclusion as a “whitewash.” evidence that UK airspace or that Liberal Democrat MP Norman 46 Further exposure was given of the Overseas Territories being Lamb stated: “apart from extraor- to the subject of rendition by used for rendition purposes and dinary renditions being morally television documentaries47 and there was no need to re-state wrong, they are wholly counter- press reports.48 what was already a clear policy. productive given the efforts of The FAC took evidence on This reply failed to address the this country and others to tackle rendition as part of its human possibility that the US statement global terrorism”.55 In response rights brief. Amnesty International was untrue, or to clarify the status Kim Howells, the then Minister criticised the government for of US aircraft or personnel passing for the Middle East, reiterated the its “prevarication over the legal through UK airspace on the way to position that “the Government or from a rendition, extraordinary have not approved and will not  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/tempcom/ or otherwise. Because committees tdip/final_report_en.pdf . 2 http://www.extraordinaryrendition.org/component/ 6 http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and- rarely comment immediately option,com_docman/task,doc_details/gid,6/Itemid,27/ events/-press-releases/2007/acpo-er-findings.shtml .  HC Written Answers,  December 2006, Col. 772W. 7 BBC2-TV, “This World: Mystery Flights”, May 2007; 9 Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights Annual  Hansard, Westminster Hall Debates, 26 June 2007, Channel , “Dispatches: Kidnapped to Order”, June 2007. Report 2006, HC 269, 29 April 2007. col. 2. 8 See for example, Guardian, “Destination Cairo: 0 Ibid.  Hansard, Westminster Hall Debates, 26 June 2007, human rights fears over CIA flights”, 2 September 2007.  Ibid. col. 7.

18 approve a policy of facilitating the principle of government account- and then rendered to Morocco, transfer of individuals through the ability. The ISC found no evidence Kabul, and Guantanamo Bay, United Kingdom to places where that UK agencies were complicit where he remained at the time there are substantial grounds to in any extraordinary rendition of the report’s publication. He believe that they would face a operations, but stated that, says he was told that the Morocco real risk of torture.” He refused to “Where there is a real possibility authorities were working with criticise US policy.56 of ‘Rendition to Detention’ to a the British security service, and The report of the Intelligence secret facility, even if it would be that he was tortured and asked and Security Committee (ISC), for a limited time, then approval questions based on information when it came in July 2007, upheld must never be given”; and also that must have been obtained from the principles of intelligence insisted that where there was a UK sources. The ISC established cooperation and sharing with real possibility that the actions of that the British security service the US and found that rendition the intelligence agencies would did interview him once while he could be acceptable in principle, result in torture or mistreat- was in Pakistan; and that they while criticising the government’s ment, the agencies should seek knew of the US plan to render “difficulty in establishing the ministerial approval. In its reply, him. The conclusion of the ISC facts” about rendition through UK the government agreed to this was that, “There is a reasonable airspace. It argued that intelli- shift in responsibility, but was probability that intelligence gence officials should have alerted equivocal over the ISC’s recom- passed to the Americans was ministers sooner to changing mendation that approval for used in al-Habashi’s subsequent US policy on renditions after 11 rendition to a secret facility should interrogation…it is regrettable September 2001 and warned: always be refused. The response that assurances regarding proper was: “The Government notes treatment of detainees were not What the rendition programme the Committee’s view. The UK sought from the Americans in has shown is that in what it opposes any form of deprivation this case.”60 The government refers to as “the war on terror” of liberty that amounts to placing responded “Assurances would be the US will take whatever a detained person outside the sought in similar circumstances action it deems necessary, protection of the law.” now.” 61 within US law, to protect its The ISC advanced the national security from those possibility that US flights Conclusions it considers to pose a serious involved in rendition had used Parliament clearly has no threat. Although the US may UK airspace (though it judged influence on the government’s take note of UK protests and that there was no evidence base strategic foreign policies or even concerns, this does not appear for a criminal inquiry). The on their broad sweep. It is the materially to affect its strategy government stated that “there case that select committees, on rendition.57 is no evidence that renditions all-party groups and individual The ISC was critical of have been conducted through members do carry out a great deal government departments for the UK without our permission”, of detailed scrutiny of lesser, but having “such difficulty in estab- and (as when it responded to the nonetheless significant aspects of lishing the facts from their own FAC) did not fully answer the policy, but there is little evidence records in relation to requests to question about aircraft which that this amounts to much more conduct renditions through UK had already facilitated or would than heckling ministers and airspace.” 58 The government later facilitate rendition. The officials rather than influencing acknowledged the problem, 59 but ISC detailed individual cases them or in any way effectively the lack of proper record-keeping in which it was alleged that the holding them to account. We was surely a restraint on the UK Agencies “were involved, chose to examine emotive issues effectiveness of the ISC inquiry or complicit” in rendition. Its where the government must have and therefore undermined the criticisms included those relating been anxious not to alienate the to the case of Binyam Mohamed public who are now more than 6 Hansard, Westminster Hall Debates, 26 June 2007, al-Habashi, an Ethopian national, ever sensitive to the effects of cols -7. 7 Intelligence and Security Committee, Rendition , Cm who was denied political asylum 77, July 2007. in the UK in 2000, six years after 60 Intelligence and Security Committee, Rendition , Cm 8 Ibid. 77, July 2007. 9 Government Response to the Intelligence and first applying. He was arrested in 6 Government Response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Report on Rendition (Cm 772, July Pakistan in April 2002, held there Security Committee’s Report on Rendition, Cm 772, July 2007). 2007.

A World of Difference 19 war and to human rights abuses, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the use of cluster munitions by British forces and British complicity in the extraor- dinary rendition of suspects to detention and torture. On the two latter issues, parliamentarians made no headway on rendition, other than drawing attention to the issue, but some headway was made on cluster munitions. MPs and peers gained a great deal from the provision of information by NGOs and their lobbying; by high-quality investigative TV programmes establishing the extent of extraordinary rendition; and by continuous and supportive broadsheet coverage of the issues and parliamentary activity. Perhaps the most that can be said is that Parliament has been able to maintain continuous scrutiny of issues of this kind, providing a public platform on which to keep the issues alive and to oblige government to explain itself, though even here it can be evasive.

20 Part 2 European Union business

Introduction for greater coordination between A clear distinction between the European Scrutiny Committee Making external and domestic policy is (ESC) and other committees particularly diffi cult to draw in to make better use of limited the context of UK membership of resources and valuable expertise. EU MPs are aware of the need for the European Union. In Not In Our Name, we describe how “in reform of the scrutiny process. In scrutiny contrast to other areas of classical March 2005, the Select Committee external policy, the British govern- on the Modernisation of the ment’s negotiations within the House published a report, Scrutiny effective EU result in a substantial body of European Business, setting out of legal texts, binding upon the prospective reforms. Part 2 begins with a brief British Parliament and electorate outline of the system of European alike” 1. The primary means by scrutiny in Parliament – and the which Parliament can scrutinise Commons in particular. The main and infl uence the formulation part of the report, which seeks of EU law is by holding British to underline the case for reform government ministers to account by considering recent examples, for their actions in the Council is split into two sections: fi rst, of Ministers, the most important Infl uencing government, looks at body in the European legislative how scrutiny works in practice, process. and how and to what extent Current arrangements for the Parliament is able to exercise scrutiny of EU business, which infl uence over the government; in general are adaptations of the second section, The Best Use of those designed for the scrutiny Resources and Expertise, explores of purely domestic law-making, how Parliament might maximise fall short in many ways of its ability to scrutinise European providing an effective system business by better allocation of suited to the particular nature resources and expertise. Part 2 of EU business. A culture of concludes by assessing the degree inaction and distraction among to which progress has been made, scrutiny committee members or is likely to be made, towards – a consequence of the system’s reform since Not in Our Name, defi ciencies – is exacerbated by bearing in mind Gordon Brown’s the perception that scrutiny of EU commitment to enact constitu- affairs is less glamorous or more tional changes giving Parliament peripheral than that of “main- greater control over foreign policy. stream” legislation. In addition, Not In Our Name identifi es a need How scrutiny works  Burall, S., Donnelly, D., and Weir, S, , Not In Our At the centre of the European Name: Democracy and Foreign Policy in Britain, Politico’s, 2006, p.08. scrutiny system in the House of

A World of Diff erence 21 Commons stands the European progress might often be delayed ordinarily takes place in one Scrutiny Committee and three and from which little information of three “specialist” European specialist standing committees. is readily available. Standing Committees, members A number of other groups within The European Scrutiny of each having been selected Parliament play important roles in Committee (ESC) consists of 16 according to their expertise in the scrutiny of EU business, and MPs of all parties and defines that committee’s policy areas. In accordingly have the potential to its primary role as providing the considering in detail documents impact or duplicate the work of Commons and other organisations of political or legal importance, this system. The Foreign Affairs and individuals with “opportu- the standing committee has the Committee and the Liaison nities to seek to influence UK right to receive oral evidence Committee (which brings together ministers on EU proposals and to from a minister from the relevant all committee chairmen) are both hold UK ministers to account for department, after which a motion capable of reviewing European their activities in the Council of on the document (or documents) affairs and thereby overlapping Ministers” 3. is adopted. The scrutiny process with the work of the European then culminates in the formal Scrutiny Committee. Depart- “Influencing ministers . . .” adoption of a motion by the House mental select committees, each of The bulk of the ESC’s work of Commons. Very occasion- whose primary role is to scrutinise begins with the examination of ally, for items deemed by the domestic legislation originating “European Union documents” European Scrutiny Committee to from the various government which usually relate to an EU be of particular importance, this departments, are also able to proposal, such as the draft of a motion will follow a debate on the investigate European matters new piece of European legislation floor of the House rather than in within their respective areas of or a “common position” in foreign a standing committee. Approxi- expertise. policy. But they can in fact be “any mately 1.5% of “second-stage” The House of Lords has a document submitted by a minister scrutiny is conducted “on the floor system of scrutiny parallel to, and to the committee or published of the House”, corresponding to essentially entirely separate from by one of the EU Institutions one such debate every six weeks. 5 that of the House of Commons. on ‘European Union matters.’” The ESC also undertakes While it does not enjoy a 4 The ESC examines approxi- “non-legislative” scrutiny that democratic foundation equivalent mately 1,000 documents a year does not have the same structured to that of the Commons, the (together with, in each case, an process nor gives rise to any Lords scrutiny system is a valued explanatory memorandum from parliamentary motion as an source of expertise and research the government which constitutes “end product”. For example, the on European questions. In any its evidence to Parliament), Foreign Secretary or Europe discussion of reform of Commons ruling whether each proposal or Minister appears before the ESC scrutiny procedures, the current statement is of “political or legal prior to a European Council and future role of the Lords – its importance”, or holding some for meeting to answer questions on interaction with, or duplication further consideration, in anticipa- the government’s position and of the work of the Commons tion of clarifying documents or intended approach. The committee in particular – is therefore of evidence. Those which are not also receives evidence from other importance. deemed important or controversial government ministers in relation are automatically cleared, and to their actions in the various The European Scrutiny for these documents the scrutiny configurations of the Council Committee and Standing process ends immediately. Those of Ministers. In addition, the Committees documents which are deemed committee takes oral evidence The system of European scrutiny important (approximately one on “cross-cutting” or otherwise in the House of Commons is half of all those examined) may significant issues, in many cases complex and, in parts, opaque. be referred for a second stage of as part of ad- hoc inquiries. In Not In Our Name describes how, debate. the 18 months until the end of for example, European legislative The second stage of debate 2006, the ESC held five such documents deemed suitable for oral evidence sessions with  European Scrutiny Committee, The European detailed scrutiny can disappear Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons, p.. 2  European Scrutiny Committee, The Work of the into a “black hole” , within which (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/TheEuro- Committee in 2006, HC -xiii,  March 2007, para . ScrutinySystemintheHoC.pdf) /760 = .%; as measured from July 200 – December 2 Burall et a. op cit, , p.8.  House of Commons Standing Order No..-(). 2006.

22 ministers on particular EU policy end of June 2006, this occurred on ongoing since 1998, entitled areas6 – on, for example, the UK 31 occasions. 7 When it is over- Developments in the European Presidency of the EU (where the ridden, the minister must give Union. Periodically, the FAC Europe Minister appeared), the these reasons as soon as possible will publish a report under this work of the European Commission to the ESC. On 28 March 2007, title exploring a wide range of (the Commissioner for Trade), the ESC heard evidence from EU-related questions, such as it and the Accession of Bulgaria and Joan Ryan MP, then Parliamentary did in July 2006. Equally signifi- Romania (the Minister for Borders Under-secretary of State at the cantly, it hears evidence from the and Immigration). Home Office, who was asked to Foreign Secretary as a matter of explain why she had “agreed to a course before European Council “ . . . and holding them to measure in the Council just days meetings. Other departmental account” before it was due to be debated in select committees periodically The ESC also seeks to “hold a European Standing Committee.” conduct equivalent EU-related ministers to account” for actions 8 The measure was a general inquiries; the Home Affairs they have taken in Council approach to a draft Framework Committee for example published meetings. After a meeting of Decision on the application of in June 2007 a report into Justice the Council of Ministers, a “mutual recognition” to judgments and Home Affairs Issues at EU government minister always in criminal matters imposing Level. In this appraisal, we gives an account of the meeting custodial sentences, something of question the value of the FAC to Parliament. This account potentially significant impact. Ms and other departmental select sometimes constitutes a Written Ryan disputed that the Scrutiny committees having roles within Ministerial Statement to the Reserve had been over-ridden European scrutiny that overlap House (or an oral statement in in that particular case, but she with those of the European the case of the Prime Minister still faced robust questioning, Scrutiny Committee. following a European Council particularly on why she had meeting), sometimes a letter agreed to this “general approach” House of Commons Liaison Committee to the European Scrutiny prior to appearing before the Committee. Significantly, the ESC when three separate letters The Liaison Committee considers ESC is also able to call a minister from the ESC chairman had general matters relating to before it if it considers he or made clear that such action the work of select committees, she has acted contrary to prior would be considered a breach of including the selection of commitments given in pre-Council the Scrutiny Reserve. Ms Ryan committee reports for debate scrutiny. Though the ESC has insisted nonetheless that the in the House. In addition it no formal power to “discipline” Home Office had the “highest hears evidence from the Prime ministers or overturn actions regard for the scrutiny process”. Minister on matters of public with which it takes issue, it is policy twice a year, when each of potential political embar- The role of departmental select committee chairman is able to rassment to be charged with committees question the Prime Minister disregarding the scrutiny of The remit of the Foreign Affairs directly. Michael Connarty, the Parliament. One particular rule Committee (FAC) extends across ESC chairman, was for example upon which the committee can all areas of foreign affairs. It has able to ask Mr Blair in February rely when calling ministers to a role analogous to that employed 2007 about the EU’s constitutional account is the Scrutiny Reserve by the European Scrutiny “impasse” still then persisting Resolution, adopted by the House Committee in its “non-legislative” after the French and Dutch of Commons in 1998, which capacity, as described above; referendums had rejected the stipulates the need for scrutiny holding independent inquiries European Constitutional Treaty. on a particular proposal to be on significant documents or on There is naturally some overlap complete before a minister may act broader, “cross-cutting” issues. between matters discussed by the upon it at the European level. The FAC considers EU matters committee meetings and those of As Not In Our Name reports, under the remit of a broad inquiry, real relevance to individual select this Scrutiny Reserve can be committees. Such overlap does over-ridden for “special reasons”. 7 Ibid., para 20. 8 European Scrutiny Committee, Draft Council not amount to a “duplication” of In the year from July 2005 to the Framework Decision on the Transfer of Prisoners: a select committee’s work, but Parliamentary Scrutiny Process, HC 2-i, 28 March 2007. 6 Ibid, Table . Uncorrected evidence. can indeed have real value. The

A World of Difference 23 ESC chairman alluded to the role less well-equipped to sift through motions result. The second of the Liaison Committee as an European documents than the section concentrates on the actor for coordination between ESC. Peers have a less support ESC’s non-legislative scrutiny select committees in the 28 March from researchers at this stage and particularly its questioning meeting with Joan Ryan MP, of scrutiny than their Commons of government ministers before described above: counterpart, with some feeling Council meetings. Both sections personally overwhelmed by conclude with recommendations I would hope … that in the new the sheer volume of technical to enhance the role of Parliament. spirit that we have with the documents passing through the Liaison Committee … that any system. 10 Legislative oversight of 1. Scrutiny of legislative of these arrangements that this type is in any case arguably documents are talked about will in fact more legitimately exercised in the The ESC’s role in filtering be transmitted to the Home House of Commons. In Part 2 we documents on the basis of their Affairs Select Committee. 9 will argue that a clearer division of legal or political importance is House of Lords EU Committee labour between the ESC and the clearly crucial, but it is in the EU Committee along the lines of standing committees, to which The House of Lords EU “legislative” and “non-legislative” “important” documents are Committee mirrors that of the scrutiny respectively would benefit referred, that the more detailed European Scrutiny Committee both committees and improve scrutiny supposedly occurs. in the Commons. Like the ESC, the overall use of parliamentary As noted above, however, it sifts through “incoming” resources in European scrutiny. documents at this second stage European documents, referring to of scrutiny all too often disappear its specialist sub-committees those “influencing” Government: the into a “black hole”, a sign of an it considers merit closer attention. case for reform It regularly takes evidence from opaque process which rarely All MPs are able to contribute to ministers on Council meetings gives rise to a robust outcome. European scrutiny, for example, by and other topics of interest, and Standing committee meetings taking part in standing committee benefits from the Scrutiny Reserve ordinarily involve the detailed meetings (all MPs are entitled to Resolution. The EU Committee’s questioning of a minister from attend), and by voting (or, very work differs from the ESC in the government department occasionally, speaking) in the key ways, however. First, unlike within the remit of which the House of Commons on EU-related the ESC, the EU Committee document falls. Culminating in motions. There is, in addition, the assesses the merit of a document the adoption of a motion by the opportunity for MPs to question in addition to its importance. standing committee. Though the the Prime Minister directly Second, the Lords EU Committee motion is put by the minister, on European issues, should relies on seven specialist sub- the committee may amend they wish, at Prime Minister’s committees. They have narrower it, thereby taking a position Questions, though such short remits than their Commons different to that suggested by the debate as might result is invariably equivalents (by virtue of their government. Indeed, effective lacking in detail. However, for greater number). Their members scrutiny logically demands that the most substantive parts of are, in general, more expert and Parliament can by such means scrutiny, the House of Commons is more inclined and able to carry formally express its discontent or “represented” by the members of out in-depth, “cross-cutting” disagreement with the position the European Scrutiny Committee inquiries of real quality and of the government. However, and its three specialist standing generally have fewer competing throughout the 2006-07 parlia- committees. We now consider how commitments for their time than mentary session, on no occasion far Parliament is able, through their colleagues in the Commons. did a European Standing this scrutiny process, to influence The EU Committee is therefore Committee adopt a motion government’s actions within the able to conduct more inquiries different to that tabled by the European sphere. The next section than its Commons counterpart and government minister responsible. looks at the scrutiny of legislative the resulting reports are held in The membership of the standing documents, in which the standing great regard in the UK and abroad. committees, like the European committees play a key role, The Lords EU Committee is Scrutiny Committee, reflects the and from which parliamentary proportions of political parties in 9 Ibid, Q. 9. 0 Burall et al, p.20. the House of Commons, and all

24 are subject to the party “whip”. Resolved, of this proposal, provided it makes This of itself is one powerful That this committee takes [a certain] suitable provision.” consideration undermining the note of EU Document 11. A minister voting against this vigour with which the scrutiny of 11510/06 relating to Maritime proposal might expect to be called European matters is conducted. Policy. before the ESC to explain why he However, a further feature of or she had done so. However, when the motion the scrutiny system undermines On the rare occasion that a on this document was put to the – arguably fatally – any incentive document’s scrutiny is carried House of Commons eight days that a standing committee out on the floor of the House, as later, it had added to the motion member from the governing party opposed to a standing committee, that the House might otherwise have for voting the expressions of parliamentar- to amend a minister’s motion: ...endorses the government’s ians are sometimes telling of a the government can substitute approach to discussions on rarely-articulated but widely-felt its own motion for that adopted these documents. frustration with the system of by the standing committee (after scrutiny. In October 2006, for This example shows how questioning and deliberation) and example, the European Scrutiny the standing committee was it is on this motion that the House Committee referred a number of Commons votes as a whole dissuaded from making any of Commission documents without a debate being held. judgment on the government’s concerned with Justice and Home As a consequence, the scrutiny approach to the document in Affairs in the EU for debate in the carried out in standing committee question by an entirely neutral House. Of particular sensitivity and the final motion adopted motion, while the House of were proposals to make some JHA by the House are essentially Commons was asked to approve policy areas subject to Qualified independent of one another. For a motion expressing general Majority Voting (as opposed to an MP to defy the party whip support. The lack of any debate each country wielding a veto), is usually politically costly, but or a division of the House on while also extending the powers to do so in standing committee such motions derived – only of the European Parliament and to amend a government motion nominally, it would appear European Court of Justice in these would also be utterly futile. The – from the scrutiny process, only areas. The ESC argued that “on description of the scrutiny process underlines the need for reform. a matter of such importance it is as a “rubber stamp” seems Such episodes illustrates vividly vital that there should be no doubt particularly apt when applied to a the ease with which scrutiny can or equivocation about the govern- system in which the government be emasculated by government. ment’s position”. In the event, the can put a motion to the House As a rule, the motions put tabled motion merely asked the at the conclusion of the process by the government to standing House to “support the govern- which needs pay no heed to the committees or to the House of ment’s position that this is not the process itself. Commons as a whole are anyway right time to focus on institutional Thus that no European framed in very general language, change”. Standing Committees has, in thereby minimising the degree MPs from all parties expressed the last parliamentary session, to which a minister’s subsequent dissatisfaction at the limited amended a government motion actions are constrained. Over capacity of the House to influence should not be surprising. the course of the 2006-07 parlia- or clarify the government’s Nonetheless, the government mentary session, only a very position, the motion itself being has in this same period taken small minority of the 30 or so described as being tabled in a advantage of being able to put documents which underwent “rather bland and meaningless a more positive motion to the “second-stage” scrutiny resulted fashion”, and being “no more

Commons than to the standing in motions which could be said than some fairly woolly words” 12 committee on the basis of seriously to constrain a minister’s . Labour MP Wayne David felt which substantive scrutiny took course of action in the Council of the need to stress that “we must place. EU Document 11510/06, Ministers. Perhaps ironically, the be clear about where Parliament relating to maritime policy, was most constraining such mandate stands”. scrutinised in standing committee was of the form “[Parliament]  European Standing Committee, Conservation of the on 19 March, where the following approves of the government’s European Eel, 2 April 2007. 2 Edward Garnier MP (Con), Commons Debates, motion was adopted: intention to vote for the adoption cols.27-6, 0 November 2006.

A World of Difference 25 Recommendations than the government’s original absence of a formal motion. The most obvious weakness of motion) should be put to the Not In Our Name describes the current scrutiny system is the House; the government could how the parliaments of some extent to which the government then propose an amendment EU countries exercise genuine holding a majority in the House to restore the original wording control over the actions of their of Commons controls the parlia- (or to change it in some other governments in the Council of mentary process whereby its way). 13 Ministers – a degree of assertive activities in the European Union influence sufficient to be termed Further, as described above, are scrutinised. To some extent “mandating”. The Nordic member this problem is inherent in the Such a procedure would probably states in particular exercise a high UK’s constitutional arrange- be invoked only rarely, given degree of parliamentary oversight ments that give the executive a that the government has a of a minister’s negotiations in the wide measure of discretionary majority on the standing Council of Ministers. Finland for power. Given the complexity of committees. 14 example has a well-developed system of “soft mandating” the European Union’s legislative The scrutiny system is an that is “based on a continued arrangements, in particular the instrument of Parliament, not dialogue between government and large number of its institutional the government, and the ESC Parliament” 15. If employed by all actors, British governments members, as Parliament’s 27 member states of the Union, will always seek to retain some chosen expert representatives, mandating of this kind would significant measure of flexibility must control it. Reform of the render effective negotiation within in European negotiations. It must, type discussed above would the Council of Ministers extremely however, be doubtful whether empower members of the standing difficult, if not impossible. While Parliament’s legitimate role in committees in their role as recognising this danger, we European scrutiny is adequately parliamentary representatives, believe nevertheless that British recognised by the present and bring greater attention to parliamentary scrutiny could arrangements. the European scrutiny process. incorporate certain features of We recommend therefore Improving the culture of European the Finnish system to strengthen that there should be a more legislative scrutiny is a theme the hand of Parliament vis-à-vis systematic relationship between explored further below (see the government, and in Not in the findings of the European section 3). Our Name we recommended that standing committees and the final the relevant committees should motion adopted without debate in 2. Scrutiny of non-legislative “develop a mandating process for the Commons, which concludes matters the United Kingdom in advance of the scrutiny process.. A number of A good proportion of scrutiny negotiations”. possibilities present themselves: of the government’s policies in The unsatisfactory nature the government could undertake the EU and EU affairs generally of present arrangements was always to present to the House – that is, scrutiny that is not based illustrated in a particularly striking the motion adopted by the on the assessment of legislative fashion by an exchange on 7 June relevant standing committee, documents – does not give rise to a 2007 between the ESC and the or to offer a choice of motions, motion or formal vote. For scrutiny then Foreign Secretary, Margaret of this type, it is the evidence always including the motion of Beckett. She appeared before given by ministers (and other the standing committee, or at the committee to give evidence experts and interested parties) least to publicise the committee’s on the forthcoming meeting of to standing committees that view when it differs from that of heads of state and government to constitutes the outcome as well the government. be held on 21-22 June that was to as the process of scrutiny. This One entirely viable possibility address in detail the question of section discusses how the scrutiny was proposed by the European institutional reform in the wake of system oversees and seeks to Scrutiny Committee itself in a the failed Constitutional Treaty. (In influence ministers’ actions in the note of February 2005 to the the event, the European Council Modernisation Committee:  Select Committee on Modernisation of the House meeting agreed a successor to of Commons, Written Evidence, Note from the Clerk of the [I]f the government’s motion is European Scrutiny Committee, 2 February 200, para . the Constitutional Treaty – the (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2000/ “Reform Treaty”.) amended in the committee, cmselect/cmmodern/6/6we28.htm) the amended motion (rather  Ibid, para 2.  Burall et al, pp.29-0.

26 The committee chairman, I say about what we might in approach of the government and Michael Connarty MP described principle accept and what we allows parliamentarians to give the committee’s questions as might not, the more I preserve their opinions on it. The present “designed to elicit the govern- the maximum amount of situation, whereby the government ment’s position on key issues”. negotiating space to resist is given the freedom to “close He went on to articulate the anything that I think is not down” scrutiny of its position, committee’s concerns about “the in Britain’s national interest. according solely to its own way in which, despite an avowed I appreciate that is unsatis- assessment, is clearly unsatisfac- welcome for ‘parliamentary factory for the committee . tory. contributions to the debate’, the . . [T]he more I say . . . the The European Scrutiny government has resisted every more I am giving away my Committee must be better able request from the committee for negotiating room, which I am to assert itself in its scrutiny a statement of its views on what always deeply reluctant to of government ministers on sort of changes there should be do. 18 occasions such as that described to the present [EU] institutional above. It should not be for the Mrs Beckett’s remarks were arrangements...”. 16 Mrs Beckett’s ESC to rely on the “good faith” illuminating in two particular or the openness of government contributions throughout the respects First, it was plain from ministers in their disclosures to lengthy examination that followed her choice of language that for committee meetings, but rather were described by Simon Carr in the British government EU treaty that, conversely, ministers should the Independent: negotiations are almost exclusively trust that their actions will be conceived of as exercises to In the matter of the amending looked upon with fairness by “resist” suggestions from others treaty that will replace the parliamentarians (a majority of supposedly damaging to British constitution she [Mrs Beckett] whom will anyway be members interests. Second, she saw a wouldn’t say anything. Why? of the governing party). The chasm of incompatibility between Because there is nothing to Finnish example is helpful in this her own aspiration to “defend be said. Even if there was connection. There, it is incumbent British interests” in the European something that could be said, on the minister to provide to Union and the committee’s desire there was nothing to say it Finnish parliamentarians his about. The whole thing is a to elicit meaningful responses or her government’s intended ‘frozen debate’. There is in from her, a chasm which she made positions on all subjects on the fact, ‘no debate’. There are no serious effort to bridge. agenda for a forthcoming meeting. ‘no discussions’ about it. She Recommendations If any of these positions, in the can’t comment on proposals Where multi-faceted and sensitive event, are resiled from, then to leave things in or out of any negotiations are reaching their the minister must explain to the treaty because they don’t exist: resolution, as in the example parliamentary scrutiny committee ‘Nothing has been proposed’. 17 above, it is clear – and the the discrepancy between the expected and final positions. Simon Carr’s piece accurately European Scrutiny Committee will Thus in June 2007, Mrs describes the nature of Mrs understand – that the government Beckett would have been obliged Beckett’s repeated frustration should not be expected to disclose to present the government’s of the ESC’s attempts to “elicit every detail of its negotiating intended position, at least on the the government’s position on strategy. In addition, in certain broad aspects of the agenda to be key issues” to any degree at all. circumstances, the government discussed at the European Council She did however (presumably might be justified in not describing the preliminary negotiating meeting – not by describing the unwittingly) articulate very clearly positions of other member states so government’s detailed negotiating the British government’s approach as not to undermine a European tactics, but rather by indicating a to European treaty negotiations. common position, once reached. range of outcomes which might One of the conclusions that I But the committee can reasonably emerge from the Council and have come to is that the less expect the government to give what the government’s initial 6 European Scrutiny Committee, Institutional Reform, at least some evidence; evidence attitude might be to the various HC 60-i, 7 June 2007, Q.. Uncorrected evidence. which outlines the general outcomes within this spectrum. 7 Simon Carr, The Independent, 2 June 2007, “Mrs Mrs Beckett’s conduct in June Beckett has nothing interesting to say – again”. 8 European Scrutiny Committee, Institutional Reform, Copyright, Independent News and Media Ltd. HC 60-i, 7 June 2007, Q.28. Uncorrected evidence. 2007 was the polar opposite of

A World of Difference 27 any such transparency. Her denial to the Scrutiny Committee’s position of the government, the that any negotiations had taken reasonable questions and ESC must often rely more on place (she later made a similar requests. We very much hope that the good faith of the ministers claim before the Foreign Affairs this episode, which ironically may appearing before it than on the Committee just two days before have hindered rather than helped political pressure which it can the Council meeting) was at best the government’s attempts to win normally bring to bear. The more disingenuous. Moreover, in the public support for its European central the European scrutiny first half of 2007, the government policy, will encourage the ESC system is to parliamentary had apparently made repeated and other relevant committees to business as a whole, the more use of its existing right to deny be more persistent in their quest government ministers will wish to Parliament sight of relevant for “intended outcomes” from be seen to be acting within it with documents. Again from the same ministers, which can then be seriousness and good faith. ESC meeting, according to the assessed against achieved results; Indeed, the ESC in October chairman: and more persistent in their quest 2007 proved itself more than able for access to documents which will to bring a level of media and [T]he government has resisted inform and improve their ability political scrutiny far beyond what every request from the to scrutinise the government’s would ordinarily be expected to committee for a statement European choices. A scrutiny bear on the government’s actions. of its views on what sort of system in which government On 9 October, the committee changes there should be ministers were obliged to present published a report that compared to the present institutional to the ESC a range of possible the Constitutional and Reform arrangements or for a sight of and intended outcomes would Treaties, pronouncing them to either the Berlin Declaration or the Presidency Progress strengthen parliamentary be “substantially equivalent”. Report ahead of the relevant oversight to the extent that it could The wide press coverage the European Council meeting . . be said to constitute a British form ESC received, and the palpable . Instead of information from of “soft mandating”. discomfort it caused the the government, sadly we Change along these lines government, demonstrate at have had to rely upon joint would bring the scrutiny of non- least the latent potential of the press conferences given by legislative European issues more ESC to play a wider and more the Prime Minister and his into line with those relating to consequential role in the scrutiny Dutch counterpart after their normal European legislative of non-legislative EU business. discussions in London in April scrutiny, where the government’s The committee undoubtedly and media speculation, which performance is ex post measured benefited from the wider political is never helpful. 19 against an agreed benchmark. salience of the issue in question; Equally importantly, however, whether or not the ratification of If the ESC continues to be such reform would bring into the Reform Treaty should require reliant upon the government’s parliamentary debate issues of a referendum. Nevertheless, the “generosity” for information of great importance which could following week, Michael Connarty central importance to its work, otherwise be quite easily denied appeared on Radio 4’s flagship then it should perhaps be at liberty parliamentary scrutiny. The Today programme and BB2 TV’s itself to define the aspects on quality of the democratic process Newsnight to discuss the issue, which the government is obliged would be enhanced. while the defence by the Foreign to state its intended position. With a greater quality of Secretary, David Miliband, of the In the negotiations preceding scrutiny should come an improved government’s position before the the European Council, the culture of scrutiny. At present, ESC attracted widespread national government clearly believed that debates in the House of Commons media coverage. a satisfactory negotiating outcome in general receive a great deal Politically high-profile and would only be possible if these more attention – from fellow controversial issues will always negotiations were pursued in parliamentarians and the media represent the best opportuni- secret. That no doubt explains, if – than do evidence sessions in the ties for the scrutiny system to it does not excuse, the obfuscatory ESC, which are often regarded make its voice heard beyond and unhelpful nature of the as being somewhat peripheral its own committees’ meetings. Foreign Secretary’s responses to the political life of the House. In this latest example, the ESC 9 Ibid. Q.. As a result, in trying to elicit the capitalised on this opportunity

28 by making a bold pronounce- on the Future of Europe and the where no other specific legal base ment in its report, and reinforcing EU Constitutional Treaty, issues is applicable; the ESC obviously its message through bullish on which ESC members needed has a legitimate interest in performances in the media and a level of expertise which might clarifying its precise operation). in the questioning of the Foreign well not have resulted from their Thus in theory cross-cutting Secretary. involvement in normal parliamen- inquiries represent a prudent use Effective scrutiny however tary business alone. of resources in that they ease the requires much more than the It is right that the ESC should pressure on other components of ability of select committees to have the benefit of inquiries of the scrutiny system. project their voices widely, only this type outside the normal flow However, the stress placed as political currents permit. An of scrutiny work. Committee on the limited resources of the improved culture of scrutiny members particularly, and all ESC by “normal business” means – among parliamentarians and other MPs besides, should inquiries of this type are few in the media – for all European be given the opportunity to number. The European Scrutiny issues – high or low-profile, familiarise themselves with and Committee has conducted only a media-friendly or otherwise – is decide upon key issues which handful of major reports beyond as necessary as ever, and it can might not otherwise be explored. the weekly flow of documents in only come about as a result of an Such inquiries can only raise the the parliamentary session 2006- act of corporate political will by general level of parliamentary 07 – on, for example, the transfer the House of Commons. But it expertise on European matters. of sentenced persons under the will also need to be reinforced by A second, and compelling, European Enforcement Order; on a number of administrative and argument for the existence of such mobile phone roaming costs; on technical changes, set out below. inquiries is that they can address the Commission’s Annual Policy the general philosophical and Strategy for 2008; and on Article 3. Better use of resources and political concerns of individual 308 EC, as described above. This expertise committee members; concerns is to be compared with the dozen An improved culture of scrutiny which might otherwise find or so documents either held under will also need to be reinforced by expression in meetings whose scrutiny, or cleared, by the ESC a number of administrative and focus should be on the specific each week, and the half-dozen or technical changes, designed to legislative proposal in hand or so Council meetings each month make a better use of available the forthcoming Council meeting. for which the ESC carries out pre- resources and the expertise of The limited resources of European and/or post-meeting scrutiny. actors in the scrutiny system. scrutiny are not best served by At the same time, the House committee meetings distracted of Lords’ EU Committee is free to a) Cross-cutting inquiries – by the sometimes repetitive devote more time and resources A broader role for the House of discussions of general concerns to carry out many more in-depth Lords? relating to the UK’s role in the inquiries, the reports of which In addition to filtering EU European Union which should be are widely acknowledged to be legislative documents and addressed elsewhere. The ESC’s of excellent quality. Members of questioning ministers before conclusions to a cross-cutting the Lords EU Committee have, (and after) their attendance at report it released in July 2007 on on average, more expertise and Council meetings – “responsive’ Article 308 EC, acknowledge this experience in European affairs scrutiny” – the ESC also carries phenomenon: “Having fully set than do their counterparts in the out detailed examinations of out in this Report the arguments European Scrutiny Committee. European issues of broad signifi- for and against the various Recommendations cance; so-called “cross-cutting” approaches to interpretation, There are theoretically two ways issues. When the ESC conducts we shall not need to rehearse to bring to the benefit of the such inquiries it typically invites them at length in reports on new European Scrutiny Committee a 20 ministers, expert parties and proposals. . .” (Article 308 EC greater number of high-quality stakeholders to give evidence, is significant in that it is capable cross-cutting inquiries. Additional before compiling and publishing of providing a legal basis for the resources would allow the ESC a final report. Not In Our Name creation of new European law to carry out more inquiries into describes how the ESC carried such issues, thereby enhancing 20 European Scrutiny Committee, Article 08 of the EC out inquiries into the Convention Treaty, HC -xxix,  July 2007, para 27. the general level of knowledge

A World of Difference 29 among MPs and the quality of The historic separation of the that a satisfactory arrangement scrutiny. Arguably the best use of two Houses and the difference between the two Houses’ such increased resources would between their respective committees could not be found be the increased provision of underlying political cultures were the underlying rationale expert support staff to aid with should not in themselves be accepted and the will for reform the production of in-depth reports barriers to the better use of mobilised. and to answer questions of fact Parliament’s resources and the Such reforms may be which might otherwise take up better scrutiny of EU business. It anathema to those who take a much time in the committee’s should be possible for a system strict view of the separation of regular meetings. All MPs of interaction to be established the House of Commons and would presumably welcome the between the scrutiny systems of Lords, but it would be foolhardy allocation of greater resources the two Houses, which, at present, not to consider that which might to strengthen the scrutiny of are effectively separate. On the be of real practical benefit to European business. few occasions when the Houses’ Parliament. Indeed, the Moderni- An alternative, and more respective European scrutiny sation Committee’s 2005 report radical option for the better use committees do cooperate – most suggested a far greater degree of resources presents itself. Peers notably through the regular of interaction between the two on the EU Committee in the meetings they jointly hold with UK scrutiny systems: the establish- Lords have greater experience, MEPs – the result is a “valuable ment of a joint Parliamentary expertise and, sometimes, interest way of exchanging views and European Committee which would in European affairs than MPs on information”, according to the meet quarterly, as well as on an ad the ESC. The Lords committee European Scrutiny Committee. 21 hoc basis “as the need arose”. Not also has seven specialised select If the European Scrutiny In Our Name warned that such a committees reporting to it (instead Committee were to cease its committee might strain too greatly of the ESC’s three) and it produces inquiries into cross-cutting issues, the “underlying differences in reports of very high standard. It and to concede entirely this political culture between non- focuses comparatively little of its function to the House of Lords elected peers and elected MPs”. energies on filtering legislative EU Committee (the Lords perhaps Indeed, it would also result in a far documents. The respective “speci- conceding its sifting of legislative greater degree of interaction than alities” of the two committees documents), valuable resources that resulting from the proposal correspond to the natural roles of would be saved, and in principle described above, which essentially their two Houses – the Commons the ESC would have for reference requires only a reliable and as a democratic overseer of policy a greater and more extensive effective means of coordination and related developments, the resource than is currently the between the Lords EU Committee Lords as a source of expertise, in case; the Lords committee carries and the ESC. With wide-scale which everyday legislative and out cross-cutting inquiries reform of the House of Lords on political business is not the central approximately weekly, as opposed the political agenda, it may be a preoccupation. to its own annual handful. In good time to consider how the two In this context, the Commons the unlikely event that the ESC Houses could work constructively cannot be said to be making wished to further its expertise on together in ways which did not the best use of its resources by a subject into which the Lords undermine – indeed may instead carrying out inquiries which EU Committee had not, or did reinforce – their relative political duplicate the excellent work not intend to inquire, it might roles. carried out in the House of for example have the means b) Main-streaming European Lords. Both Houses conducted to encourage the Lords EU affairs reports into the Commission’s Committee to conduct such an 2008 Annual Policy Strategy, inquiry. Similarly, the ESC might The European Scrutiny but to what end? If the House of be empowered to invite a Lords Committee, like other House of Commons ESC can devote greater inquiry to focus on aspects of a Commons scrutiny committees, attention to legislative business subject which it deemed to be of must assess a large number of and make use of reports of at least particular relevance to its work. It documents which fall within its equivalent quality produced by is in any case difficult to envisage remit over the widest range of its counterpart in the Lords, then departmental spheres of interest. 2 European Scrutiny Committee, The Work of the surely it should do so? Committee in 2006, HC -xiii,  March 2007, para 29. As we pointed out above, the

30 domestic impact of European no surprise if attendance in issue would be continued by the legislation is felt for example in committee meetings suffers as Home Affairs Select Committee. agriculture, in environmental a result – particularly since only 24 The Home Affairs committee affairs, in economic and social three of each committee’s 13 did indeed consider the issue in affairs. Whereas other depart- members are required to constitute question – the proposed transfer mental select committees are a quorum. of sentenced persons between staffed by MPs who can bring member states – in its wide- Recommendations expertise to bear on all documents ranging and in-depth report, “Main-streaming” is a reform which they consider, the ESC Justice and Home Affairs Issues at which would address the must judge the legal and political the EU Level, published in June unrealistic demands placed upon importance of EU documents 2007. In fact, this report held up participants of the European from the many different depart- the legislative deadlock over the scrutiny system, make better use mental areas. Most ESC members issue as suggestive of the need of Parliament’s resources, and – regardless of their knowledge of for decision-making reform in the bring European scrutiny nearer 25 European affairs – cannot, for any EU’s third pillar. to the centre of political life in the given document, be experts at all. The Home Affairs Committee is Commons. We continue to take The current system does clearly conscious of the centrality the view, expressed in Not In Our acknowledge the anomalous of European questions to its work, Name, that EU legislation should position in which European inviting, in its JHA report, the be scrutinised as if it were a part Scrutiny Committee members find ESC to “consider making more of the “main stream” of domestic themselves. The ESC is unique in frequent use of its existing power legislation. At present, the ESC having the ability to call upon all to request opinions from [depart- scrutinises agricultural laws of EU other departmental committees for mental select committees]on origin just as the Committee for significant issues” ; and the Home evidence. However, pressures of the Environment, Food and Rural Office to “undertake to consult time and resources limit the use Affairs does for agricultural laws us directly when major develop- the ESC can realistically make of of domestic origin. Yet, in practical ments in the JHA field are at a this power. In 2006, the committee terms, both kinds of laws apply formative stage”. 26 In this vein, it sought opinions from depart- in the same way. Departmental calls explicitly for “greater efforts mental select committees on only committees however, enjoy a far to ‘mainstream’ EU scrutiny”, three occasions. 22 greater concentration of expertise regretting the lack of progress The above argument applies in this sector. Why should a on the proposals outlined in the equally to the three standing separate system of European Modernisation Committee’s 2005 committees which look in detail scrutiny exist to carry out the work report, and describing how it has at those questions deemed by which a departmental system of itself already “taken such steps as the ESC to be of legal or political scrutiny is better equipped to do? are open to us” to enact change in importance. These committees, by As things stand, departmental this direction. 27 virtue of their being only three, select committees do on occasion However effective the commu- have, for specialist committees, involve themselves in the scrutiny nication and coordination between departmental remits far broader of important aspects of relevant the two committees might be than those of departmental select European business. In December though, clarity, continuity and committees. Standing Committee 2006, the European and Home the best use of resources and B, for example, considers Affairs scrutiny committees expertise imply that such scrutiny documents whose subject matter held a joint evidence session would be best undertaken in a falls within the policy areas of on the accession of Bulgaria single crucible. Departmental the Treasury, the Department of and Romania to the EU. When select committees, for the reasons Work and Pensions, the FCO, Home Office Minister Joan Ryan discussed, seem best placed to the Department for International appeared before the ESC in March inherit sole responsibility for Development, the Home Office, 2007, to be taken to task on the 2 European Scrutiny Committee, Draft Council or the Ministry of Justice, along Framework Decision on the Transfer of Prisoners: government’s alleged breach of Parliamentary Scrutiny Process, HC 2-i, 28 March 2007. with “any matters not otherwise the Scrutiny Reserve, the session Q.9. Uncorrected evidence. allocated”. 23 It should be of 2 Home Affairs Committee, Justice and Home Affairs ended with expressions from Issues at European Union Level, HC 76-I,  June 2007, para 26. 22 Ibid. para 22. the minister and the committee 2 European Scrutiny Committee, A short guide for 26 Ibid., paras , 6. Members of Parliament, June 200, p. chairman that scrutiny on the 27 Ibid., paras , 8.

A World of Difference 31 legislative scrutiny. elevated from being seen as a Just as main-streaming would fringe issue attracting only fringe divert the flow of EU-related interest, to one of importance to documents into the various depart- all MPs whatever their area of mental select committees, so by expertise. The culture of European the same rationale, these select scrutiny would improve greatly in committees would be best placed consequence. to hear evidence from that depart- ment’s minister before his or her appearance at an EU Council of Ministers meeting. Both legislative and non-legislative business could be main-streamed in this way. For example, both the ESC and Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) hear evidence Europe Minister or Foreign Secretary in relation to meetings of the European Council (as opposed to the Council of Ministers). Indeed, Mrs Beckett’s performance before the ESC described above was virtually duplicated when she appeared before the FAC 12 days later. 28 Such a duplication of roles does not represent the best use of resources. The FAC might be in any case the better equipped of the two committees to carry out this kind of scrutiny. Bringing European scrutiny into the main stream of domestic scrutiny would have the benefit not only of better allocating the limited resources of the Commons and ensuring a higher quality of focused debate. It would also bring European Union business into the main stream of MPs’ consciousness. For many MPs, the EU remains an alien body from which legal proposals “emanate”. As European legislation often has an impact which is domestic in character, it would be better scrutinised if the scrutiny system catered for this. Better scrutiny would result from the acknowl- edgement that the European Union is a central component of the United Kingdom’s democratic life. And the EU would be

28 Foreign Affairs Committee, Developments in the European Union, HC 66-ii, 9 June 2007.

32 Part 3 Confl ict and humanitarian crisis

BRITAIN IS VERY RARELY IN A POSITION Data Project 1 records a downward to respond on its own to internal trend in all types of armed confl ict The confl icts – genocide, ethnic from more than 50 at the peak in cleansing and crimes against 1992-93 to 30 in 2004; and the humanity in other countries Human Security Report points responsibility – and to inter-state wars and war to a visible decline and all-time crimes. In the modern world, low in international (inter-state) to protect almost all responses and inter- confl icts since the early 1980s2, ventions to internal and inter- which is also corroborated by the state confl icts where the UK is data from Uppsala. Many of these actively involved are multilateral confl icts are disputes over national and mediated through the boundaries or the division of UN Security Council (though scarce resources, often exacerbated of course regional attempts by ethnic, religious or sectarian at mediation are common). divides. Some current confl icts However, the United Kingdom may be in abatement, but even is not only a permanent member when there is progress towards of the UN Security Council, peace, a return to violence can but is also internationally often be sudden and swift as in, respected for its approach to for example, the continuing cycle confl ict, despite Iraq, and so has of confl ict in the African Great signifi cant infl uence in this area Lakes region or West Africa. Thus of international policy. Part 3 will policy responses to confl ict are consider the part that the UK not just concerned with stopping government has played in the or containing violence; but also United Nations, from the framing involve long-term peace-building, of general policy and practice to peace-keeping, transitional justice, specifi c cases of severe internal and post-confl ict reconstruction. confl ict (specifi cally Chad, Such efforts are multilateral in their Sudan and Zimbabwe), and in very essence – from neighbouring international negotiations; and countries dealing with refugees to also the role that Parliament the international community giving has sought, and should seek, in support and aid for in-country oversight of the government’s peace processes. They are also by policies and practice in the UN their very nature essentially unpre- and multilateral and bilateral dictable, frustrating and too often negotiations. frustrated and very hard for a body Britain is of course deeply like the British Parliament to get a involved in two fi erce confl icts grasp on. over geopolitical interests in Iraq  Harbom, L., and Wallensteen, P., “Armed Confl ict and its international dimensions 96-200,” in Journal of and Afghanistan. But confl icts Peace Research, vol. 2, 200: pp. 62-6. are overall at a historically low 2 Human Security Report, War and Peace in the 2st Century, Human Security Centre, University of British level. The Uppsala Confl ict Columbia, 200: p. 6 ff

A World of Diff erence 33 The controversy over Summit 3 and subsequent use in that the international community international intervention different UN Security Council has a responsibility to act at such resolutions. The principles of times of crisis. In pursuit of this The international community’s the doctrine are laudable, and doctrine Blair led the UK into war failures to act effectively against the UK has given it strong over Kosovo and armed interven- genocide in Rwanda, or the backing. However, the realities tion in Sierra Leone, for which he massacre at Srebrenica, or in the of power at the Security Council received international accolades. crisis in Darfur, stand as eternal make the whole idea of inter- However, his pursuit of his rebukes and reminders of its national responsibility for the doctrine and belief in “hard inability to prevent humanitarian internal affairs of other nations power” military interventionism in tragedies around the world. a frustrating and difficult area of the joint invasion and damaging But there is a constant tension policy. As we note above, China occupation of Iraq without a between the growing view that and Russia, key members of the mandate from the United Nations the international community Security Council who both possess has undermined the UK’s interna- has a responsibility to act in a veto on action, remain hostile tional standing as a country acting such desperate situations and to its adoption, especially where in good faith and has proved the traditional principle of state intervention is being contem- politically divisive in domestic sovereignty and non-intervention plated. They are concerned not politics. The UK’s response in the internal affairs of states. only to protect trading and other to conflict remains politically This tension is constantly evident arrangements with some potential entwined with the unresolved Iraq in the debates within the UN target nations, but also about the occupation in both international Security Council, which alone possible implications for their and domestic debates and adds a can sanction international inter- conduct in Chechnya and Tibet, further dimension to parliamen- vention. Both China and Russia among other places. tary activity. In his final evidence continue to uphold the principle of Nonetheless, the Respon- session with the Commons Liaison non-intervention, often bolstered sibility to Protect represents a Committee in June 2007, Mike change in the basic understanding Gapes, chair of the Foreign Affairs by self-interested motives. of the relationship between Committee (FAC), questioned Tony The United Nations has the individual and the state, Blair on his philosophy as set out however attempted to address this emphasising the responsibilities in Chicago in 1999 and associated dilemma through the emerging of a state towards individuals developments. He asked whether international legal norm known as as bearers of human rights that the very deep difficulties we the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). must be respected, protected and now have in Iraq, have actually This doctrine proposes a way to fulfilled. discredited and undermined deal effectively and legitimately future interventions . . . You have with genocide, war crimes, ethnic UK government policy talked about Darfur and there cleansing and crimes against When Tony Blair came to power could be others. It is actually the humanity. Establishing a tripartite in 1997, Robin Cook, his first case that liberal interventionism is concept of a responsibility to Foreign Secretary, announced that now much harder to make because prevent; a responsibility to react; “[UK] foreign policy must have an of the problems we are now expe- and a responsibility to rebuild, ethical dimension”. 4 There was an riencing in Iraq the doctrine seeks to build for the assumption that no longer would In response, the then Prime international community the basis such atrocities as the genocide Minister noted that “one of the for discussion of intervention by in Rwanda be allowed to happen odd things is that some of the the international community on as the international community people who are most opposed to humanitarian grounds as well as stood by and watched. In 1999, Iraq are most in favour of [action giving emphasis to the importance Tony Blair unveiled his doctrine in] Darfur” and emphasised the of prevention. of “international community” in importance of being “prepared for The Responsibility to Protect a speech in Chicago 5, arguing the long haul”.6 doctrine is slowly making its However, it is essential to way into customary international  200 World Summit Outcome, General Assembly distinguish between the invasion Resolution 60/, September 200. paras 8 & 9. of Iraq, which was carried out law, through such processes as  Robin Cook, address in the Locarno Room, Foreign incorporation in the Outcome and Commonwealth Office, 2 May 997  Tony Blair, speech to the Economic Club of 6 House of Commons Liaison Committee, Minutes of Document of the UN’s 2005 World Chicago, 22 April 1999. Evidence, 8 June 2007.

34 without UN approval, and the doctrine, and DFID, the FCO Balkans and the Middle UK’s policy towards countries and Ministry of Defence (MOD) East.14 afflicted by internal conflict, have created the Post-Conflict The 2007 Spending Review like Sudan and the Democratic Reconstruction Unit as a joint contained a PSA on conflict Republic of Congo, where the UK venture. By September 2006, issues, No. 30, which committed government seeks multilateral Whitehall accepted the principles the three departments to work solutions. Indeed, the UK has of the Responsibility to Protect with other nations “to promote been a long-standing supporter and the need to put them into [the] willingness and capacity to of the Responsibility to Protect practice. However, there was operationalise the international doctrine in internal conflicts still no clear view as to how to agreement on ‘responsibility to giving rise to humanitarian crises, do this. Government often fails protect’ in specific cases.” 15 regularly raising the issue at the to enunciate clear policies in The International Development Security Council7 and ensuring particular cases which involve (Reporting and Transparency) that the doctrine was incorporated complex bilateral and multilateral Act 2006 provides an additional in the aforementioned summit negotiations and a multiplicity platform for accountability to outcome document.8 Government of small incremental actions that Parliament. The Act, which ministers, such as John Reid,9 can seem ad hoc and fragmented began as a Private Member’s Bill when Secretary of State for while punchy media campaigns tabled by the Labour MP Tom Defence, to Hilary Benn,10 as can simply drive home the need Clarke, requires the International Secretary of State for International for decisive action. Development Secretary to report Development, have repeatedly Consecutive Public Spending annually to Parliament on the referred in speeches at home Agreements (PSAs) reveal the extent to which government and abroad to the need for the complex and incremental nature policies across the board international community to fulfil of the government’s attempts to – including those towards conflict its obligations under the Responsi- fashion an overall strategy by – contribute to development. bility to Protect. The UK is inter- setting clear and inter-linked goals The purpose of the Act was to nationally respected for its work in for government departments to ensure a more joined-up and post-conflict situations, although it pursue. These agreements are set transparent approach to reporting has been less effective in conflict by the Treasury after negotiation to Parliament. The government prevention.11 with departments and their trans- secured an amendment to the In addition to speeches, there parency is supposed to facilitate original Bill to include the report has been a concerted attempt over accountability and oversight by in DFID’s Annual Report; and the recent years to consider the policy Parliament (though Parliament has first Annual Report after the Act changes needed to implement a a negligible role in determining in May 2007 included chapters on commitment to conflict prevention PSAs to begin with).13 The 2004 “Making the multilateral system and post-conflict reconstruction. Spending Review’s Public Service more effective” and “Fragile The Cabinet Office has produced Agreement on conflict, set for the states, conflict and crises”. DFID a report, Investing in Prevention, MOD in partnership with DFID also published a policy paper, 12, DFID and FCO have consulted and the FCO, showed just how Preventing Violent Conflict, setting non-governmental organisa- hard and complex their task is: out the department’s plans to tions on various aspects of the By 2008 deliver improved effec- allocate additional resources to tiveness of UK and interna- improve its response to conflict 7 See for example the UK statement in the Protection of Civilians Debate, 28 June 2006 tional support for conflict and to make development work 8 Speech by Gareth Evans, “Governments and NGOs: prevention by addressing more “conflict sensitive”. 16 Their Responsibility to Protect”, One World Trust,  September 200. long-term structural causes of 9 See for example John Reid’s speech, “20th Century conflict, managing regional The parliamentary environment Rules, 2st Century Conflict”, to the Royal Ujited Services Institute, April 2006. and national tension and There is support for the Respon- 0 See for example Hilary Benn’s speech, “Humani- tarian and Conflict Reform – An Emergency Service for the violence, and supporting sibility to Protect doctrine across World”, at the United Nations, January 2006. post-conflict reconstruction  See for example Picciotto, R., “Memorandum  Ibid. Ministry of Defence Objective I(2), shared Submitted to International Development Committee”, where the UK can make with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the in the committee’s report, Conflict and Development: a significant contribution, Department of International Development p. 2. Peacebuilding and Post-Conflict Reconstruction, HC  HM Treasury, PSA Delivery Agreement 0: Reduce 92-II, 26 October 2006. in particular Africa, Asia, the impact of conflict through enhanced UK and interna- 2 Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, Investing in tional efforts, (PU 86, October 2007), objective .8, p. . Prevention: An International Strategy to Manage Risks of  HM Treasury, 200 Spending Review: Public Service 6 http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/preventing- Instability and Improve Crisis Response, February 200. Agreements 200-2008, Foreword. conflict.pdf .

A World of Difference 35 all the parties in Parliament. The Development Committee’s review year. However, while there is a divides are not party political, but of DFID’s 2006 departmental clear overlap of human rights can and do emerge on the actual report showed minimal interest in and the issues that arise from policy making over tactical and conflict and dedicated just three conflicts, the focus is naturally on country-specific issues. So first we paragraphs to all of DFID’s PSA human rights rather than conflict examine parliamentary scrutiny objectives, focusing on the need prevention and resolution. This of the broad issues of conflict and of DFID to report better against leads to a number of gaps in the peace-keeping, and then consider failing targets.20 The Foreign report with respect to conflict three specific conflicts to measure Affairs Committee has not yet prevention and response, and the the extent of parliamentary published its report on the FCO’s scrutiny is not conducted from that oversight and its effectiveness. report for 2007. perspective. Only the Defence Committee Finally, the Liaison Committee Three mechanisms for regular explicitly considered the target used its regular meetings with the scrutiny on conflict prevention, going Prime Minister to review aspects The first major mechanism through each PSA target in its of foreign policy in the 2006-07 through which Parliament could report reviewing the Defence parliamentary session, choosing and should review broad policy Committee Annual Report 2005- interventionism as one of the three is the annual review by select 06.21 However, the discussion of themes chosen for discussion committees of the work of the this target is limited to a criticism during the final evidence session government departments they of its nature, complaining that with Tony Blair. 23 Inevitably the are delegated to shadow. The it is too outcome oriented to questions focussed on the UK’s departmental annual reports be an effective measure of part in the invasion of Iraq and the provide an opportunity for doing performance.22 As such, even validity of that policy choice. The so. Each departmental committee though there was a target that questioning did broaden to discuss is required to “examine the could be used to increase trans- Blair’s doctrine of interventionism, department’s Public Service parency and accountability, but there was no consideration Agreements, 17 the associated and each of the three relevant of the more complex and refined targets and the statistical meas- departments reported against the understanding of intervention urements employed, and report target, the relevant parliamen- under the doctrine of Responsi- if appropriate” as part of their tary committees generally failed bility to Protect, nor was there a “core tasks”. 18 Obviously, the scrutinise either the reporting, or review of the UK’s broader conflict committees are obliged to pick use the opportunity to scrutinise policy. and choose what they should thoroughly and systematically the In brief, none of the three concentrate their attention on, but activities of the departments. major opportunities of regular there was no sign of a systematic It remains to be seen whether scrutiny and oversight gave rise to approach to scrutiny of the 2004 the committees will scrutinise sustained and repeated scrutiny PSA targets by the committees, the implementation of the 2007 of the broad strategic thrust of UK Defence, Foreign Affairs and agreement more thoroughly in the policy on conflict resolution or to International Development, that future. In June the International detailed review of how that policy were supposed to be maintaining Development Committee began is implemented. In one sense, the oversight of the three departments’ examining DFID’s 2007 Annual Quadripartite Committee, which performance, and only limited Report and asked for detailed oversees the working of strategic scrutiny of the PSA target on information from the department controls on arms exports, plays a conflict prevention. on conflict prevention, showing it supplementary role in considering In May 2006 DFID stated was interested in the subject. the UK’s response to conflict. The it was not entirely confident of The second major opportunity committee took an interest in the meeting its targets for action on for regular oversight in this area export and use of UK weapons in conflict.19 But the International is through review of the annual countries, including Chad, Sudan Foreign Office Human Rights and Zimbabwe, three countries 7 The PSAs and targets were introduced of course as a mechanism of Treasury control of departments, but they Reports. The Foreign Affairs riven by internal conflict or are capable of being used as an instrument of scrutiny by parliamentary committee and members. Committee reviews them each executive repression, in its annual 8 Liaison Committee, Annual Report for 2002, HC 8, Objective C, Task 6,  April 200. 20 Op cit, paras. 62-6. 9 House of Commons International Development 2 Defence Committee, Ministry of Defence Annual Committee, Department for International Development Report and Accounts 200-06, HC 7,  December 2006. 2 Liaison Committee, Oral Evidence Given by Rt Hon. Departmental Report 2006, HC7, 2 November 2006. 22 Pp cit, para. 2. Tony Blair MP, HC 00-ii, 8 June 2007.

36 report published in August 2007.24 broader work. An advantage of discussed the repressive “slum A fourth possible route for this process, which doesn’t entail clearance programme” in 2005, scrutiny exists but did not manifest a report, is that the administra- but no resolutions have been itself in the 2006-07 sesssion. In tive burden on the committee is forthcoming during the period 2003 the FCO began publishing low, but the recurring nature of of this case study. China has an annual report on the United the meetings ensures continual been blocking the inclusion of Kingdom in the United Nations. oversight as issues progress; and Zimbabwe on its agenda on the The reports since have included the process effectively develops grounds that it would threaten information on how the UK is “soft mandating” as a dialogue regional or global security. working to improve international grows between the committee Wide-ranging UN reports often responses to conflict. But the title and the minister (see pages 26 include critical comments about “Annual Report” has been dropped and 55). Occasionally (in fact Zimbabwe, 31 and the UN Office and while a report appeared in at the moment) the committee for the Coordination of Humani- 2006, there was no report in 2005 supplements this normal schedule tarian Affairs has chronicled and none so far in 2007. Had one of evidence sessions with a full the descent into a failed state. been published in this parlia- inquiry on DFID and the World Overall, however, there has been mentary session it might have Bank. There is no reason why the little high-level action and some formed the basis for parliamentary FAC couldn’t replicate this process contradiction lower down, as when scrutiny, though this outcome is for the UN General Assembly Zimbabwe was elected to chair the by no means guaranteed since the Week. UN’s Commission on Sustainable FAC did not produce a report on Economic Development.32 the July 2006 publication. Case studies in scrutiny: The British government In addition, of course, 1. Zimbabwe strongly advocated greater UN committees can take advantage of The current crisis in Zimbabwe political involvement in the crisis, other hooks for regular scrutiny, as has been covered extensively seeking to add Zimbabwe to the the European Scrutiny Committee in the UK press since Robert Security Council agenda,33 as does. In its oversight of DFID Mugabe’s government announced well as asking the Human Rights activities, for example, the Inter- its plans for land reform in 1997, Council to send in investigators.34 national Development Committee leading to violence against The government has also acted has circumnavigated the lengthy farmers and farm workers ,25 and in other multilateral forums: report process by holding an over time to extreme hardship, 26 for example, Gordon Brown annual oral evidence session repressive measures, political announced that should President following the autumn meetings corruption, and rising inflation 27 Mugabe attend a forthcoming AU- of the World Bank. In advance of and unemployment, and falling EU summit, he would boycott it. the meetings DFID circulates a life expectancy rates.28 More than 35 In fact, the UK’s policy towards UK objectives note to interested four million people are expected Zimbabwe is avowedly multilater- parties, including NGOs. After to need food aid next year.29 By alist, wisely seeking to act through the meetings, which are normally October 2007 Zimbabwe had such forums to try to prevent attended by the Secretary of State, run out of bread and the country (though unavailingly) Britain the International Development lacked any hard currency for being accused of neo-colonialism. Committee issues a call for imports.30 At the same time, the lack of high written evidence from NGOs and The United Nations is distrib- level activity at the UN shows that holds an oral evidence session uting food and giving practical the UK policy of seeking a multi- with the Secretary of State. The support in Zimbabwe, but has lateral solution is failing. committee quizzes the Secretary been unable to move at a policy Despite the government’s of State on the meetings and level. The Security Council  See for example the UN Special Envoy Report on DFID’s current and future work Human Settlement Issues in Zimbabwe, Report of the at the World Bank at an evidence 2 BBC News Online, “Zimbabwe Protests Turn Violent”, Fact-Finding Mission to Zimbabwe to assess the Scope  April 2000. and Impact of Operation Murambatsvina, UN- Habitat, 8 session which is normally followed 26 BBC News Online “Zimbabwe Farmers: Seizures will July 200. by a session with NGOs on the Ruin Country”, 28 November 997 2 Observer, “Fury at Zimbabwe UN role”,  May 2007. 27 HC Debates, 9 July 2007, col. 78.  Reuters, “Britain Urges Security Council to Act on minister’s replies and DFID’s 28 World Health Organisation, Core Health Indicators, Zimbabwe”, 28 March 2007 200.  Independent, “Britain asks UN to Send Investigates 29 Guardian, “Shops emptied as panic grips in Zimbabwe, 6 March 2007. 2 House of Commons Committees on Strategic Export Zimbabwe”,  July 2007.  Independent, “It is right that I make clear my Controls (Quadripartite Committee), Strategic Export 0 Guardian, “Zimbabwe runs out of Bread”,  October position. We will not shirk our responsibilities”, 20 Controls: 2007 Review, HC 7, TSO, 7 August 2007. 2007 September 2007.

A World of Difference 37 efforts, and the special respon- greatly concerned about the Yet, PQs are, for all their sibility the UK feels it has in situation in Zimbabwe, but that obvious weakness, far and a former colony’s security, those concerns are shared by away the most common way of Parliament has not engaged with the whole European Union, drawing attention to humanitarian any vigour in seeking to assess the by the African Union—sadly, crises, no doubt because of their relevance and the success of the those concerns have not immediacy. When we talked government’s policies. During the always been expressed to MPs about the issue, they 2006-07 parliamentary session, as loudly as they might explained that their main purpose Zimbabwe’s plight has been raised be—by the United Nations was to ensure that Zimbabwe in only six PQs in the House of and by the whole international stayed high up the government’s Commons and nine in the House community. It is very important agenda and they saw PQs as a of Lords (seven of which from that we recognise that this is tool to achieve this rather than one peer, Lord Blaker). There not a bilateral dispute between for oversight. For example, Philip was also an adjournment debate, Britain and Zimbabwe; this is Hollobone MP said that asking instigated by the government, in about the whole international the question, quoted above, would the Commons. 36 Furthermore the community expressing concern demand ministerial and official questions and answers have been about a very dangerous and time in preparing the answer and fairly repetitive and rhetorical in deteriorating human rights so put the issue in the minister’s flavour, with MPs focusing on the situation. We will keep up the mind.39 In the House of Lords, economic collapse and human pressure through all those Lord Blaker, who has taken a rights abuses and urging the bodies.38 special interest in Zimbabwe since government to act either through being the responsible minister This exchange provided a specific sanction or just in in 1974, seeks to ensure through neither information on general. The exchange between his questions that there is regular government policy, nor the Philip Hollobone MP and the discussion in the upper House. 40. opportunity for scrutiny on the then Foreign Secretary Margaret The adjournment debate on efficacy of the government’s Beckett MP is typical. He asked: Zimbabwe, 41 though instigated policy of multilateral engagement. by the government as we note … What hope can the Foreign This is because to some extent above, came about under pressure Secretary offer to Morgan MPs believe there is little more from MPs. It was the first debate Tsvangirai and others who they can ask the government to on Zimbabwe for three years, but would lead a free and do. MPs consider that it is has took place in the absence of the democratic Zimbabwe that been pursuing a wise course Foreign Secretary. Meg Munn MP, Robert Mugabe’s regime is in a positions where is has few a parliamentary under-secretary, under the intense scrutiny alternative options. This limits spoke for the government instead of Britain, the Common- the policy space and leaves little and merely reiterated the point wealth and the interna- political traction for opposition that the government was seeking tional community, and that parties – the major motor for multilateral solution. During the something effective will be challenge to government debate, MPs pressed her on the done in the very near future to policy – to raise the question of truth of a Sunday Times report ensure that that regime comes Zimbabwe. Furthermore, Parlia- that Gordon Brown would not to an end?37 mentary Questions (PQs) are attend the AU-EU summit if not an effective instrument for To which she replied: President Mugabe were invited, detailed analysis and discussion. and whether or not other ministers I simply say that, of course, there They are brief and there is would boycott the summit. She is considerable concern across limited opportunity for follow-up refused to confirm the report, or the international community questions. Even if substantive provide any further detail, 42 thus and the hon. Gentleman disagreement, or perceived need making it impossible for MPs is right to identify it. It is further to question a government to question the wisdom of this important to make it clear, position, were to arise, there is approach during the debate. (MPs particularly in this House, that, no immediate scope for MPs or yes, the United Kingdom is opposition parties to call for a change in direction. 9 Interview with Philip Hollobone MP 0 Interview with Lord Blaker 6 HC Debates, 9 July 2007, cols. 77-.  HC Debates, 9 July 2007, cols. 77-. 7 HC Debates, 20 March 2007, cols 670-67 8 HC Debates, 20 March 2007, col 67 2 HC Debates, 9 July 2007, col. 8

38 complained so strongly about the to apply greater pressure 2. Sudan Foreign Secretary’s absence, that on the Mugabe regime. We The humanitarian crisis in Ms Munn was obliged to promise further recommend that, in Sudan shows how Parliament’s a further debate on Zimbabwe in its response to this Report, scrutiny is hampered by the the autumn.43) the Government set out what departmental structure of select Meanwhile neither of the progress has been made on committees that can fail to reflect two relevant select committees, the issue of Zimbabwe at the government’s cross-departmental the FAC and International Security Council.46 approach. Departmental limits on Development Committee (IDC), the relevant select committees’ This is not oversight. It engaged to any substantial degree freedom of manoeuvre and the basically endorses the govern- with the crises in Zimbabwe. absence of developed processes ment’s approach with just one Neither held an inquiry into of cooperation can prevent policy recommendation, that the government policy during the comprehensive and fully relevant government continue to focus 2006-07 session, even though oversight of the policy in countries on South Africa as a conduit for it was four years since the FAC such as Sudan, where the Sudan reform in Zimbabwe. There was had conducted a full inquiry and Unit in the FCO facilitates neither analysis of the current since the IDC had dedicated just ongoing cooperation between the UK policy, constructive ideas for two pages to Zimbabwe in its Foreign Office and DFID. policy alternatives, nor a review inquiry into the humanitarian The crisis in Darfur, with more of progress from the previous crisis in southern Africa.44 The than 200,000 people dead, 47 two year. The committee was limited, only significant reference to million more displaced, 48 and to some extent, by the lack of Zimbabwe came in the Foreign accusations of genocide levelled information provided by the Affairs Committee report on against government-supported Foreign Office, but there are many the FCO Human Rights Report militias, naturally attracts huge other sources of information on 2006.45 The FCO report identified public attention that is kept which the committee could have Zimbabwe as a “major country alive by active media coverage drawn. of concern”, detailing oppressive and NGO campaigns that draw The fact that neither select tactics by the police, housing parallels between the killings committee engaged fully with demolition, food shortages, state there and the genocide in Rwanda. government policy on Zimbabwe, control of the media, expropriation Media and NGO pressures ensure and that the opposition parties of land and money, and civil and that though civil wars have raged had no incentive to challenge political oppression. The FCO in Sudan for decades and all the the government, left the role report set out its policy responses, conflicts in Sudan are interlocked, of scrutinising government listing bringing Zimbabwe onto it is primarily Darfur that gains to individual MPs and peers. the agenda of the UN Security most attention. The Africa Union Inevitably, their efforts are largely Council, using the UK presidency force (AMIS) has been in place ad hoc, and uncoordinated and of the EU to raise awareness and since 2004, to monitor and prevent their instrument of scrutiny lies extend a travel ban and continuing human rights abuses, but has with PQs with all their drawbacks to provide humanitarian assistance proved unable to protect the most (see above). The All Party Parlia- through non-governmental and vulnerable people in Darfur, due mentary Group on Zimbabwe, inter-governmental organisations. to its weak mandate, low troop one of these increasingly popular The FAC covered Zimbabwe in numbers and lack of equipment. loose cross-party alliances on eight paragraphs, concluding that, The force’s weakness and exposed political issues, does work behind position between the fronts has the appalling human rights the scenes. But once again its made AMIS a target for numerous situation in Zimbabwe has priority is to maintain attention attacks, including the raid in late deteriorated over the past on the issue, and to disseminate September when their barracks year. We recommend that information. Neither goal can were overrun and ten peace- the Government continue realistically be called oversight, keepers were killed.49 strongly to urge South Africa nor do they attempt to be. 7 UN Human Rights Council, Report of the High-Level  HC Debates, 9 July 2007, col. 77. Mission on the situation of human rights in Darfur  International Development Committee, Humani- pursuant to Human Rights Council decision S-/0, para. tarian Crisis in Southern Africa , HC 6-I, TSO,  March 8, 7 March 2007. 200. 8 Ibid, para. .  Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights Annual 6 Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights Annual 9 New York Times “Darfur Rebels Kill 0 in Peace Report 2006, HC 269, TSO, 29 April 2007. Report 2006, (HC 269, 29 April 2007), para. 87. Force”,  October 2007.

A World of Difference 39 There has been intense inter- contrast to France and Denmark, coherence. Since the Interna- national interest in the plight of both of whom offered troops after tional Development Committee’s the people of Darfur, and much the resolution was passed.51 It is report on the Responsibility to activity, though so far ineffective, predicted that the force will take Protect and Darfur 55 in March at the United Nations. During the two years to get up to full strength. 2005 and the follow-up report in period of this case study, the UN As we state above, government January 2006,56 there has been no Security Council received nine policy on Sudan is cross-depart- strategic oversight of the rapidly- reports from the Secretary-General mental with the Sudan Unit changing and desperate situation and passed three resolutions. providing coordination between in Sudan in over 18 months while The last of these, in July 2007, the FCO and DFID, though any the government has been active approved a mandate for a joint troops or equipment sent in both directly in Sudan and at the African Union-United Nations support of the UN peacekeeping United Nations. peace-keeping force there, force would fall under the remit As with Zimbabwe, PQs have following a significant initiative by of the Ministry of Defence which proved very limited instruments Gordon Brown. The participation is not currently part of the Sudan for oversight, and for the same of the UN in the peace-keeping Unit. The government has a reasons (see page 38). One force in Darfur had long been the commitment as part of Indicator typical exchange occurred on 13 subject of intense negotiation with 2 in the 2007 PSA 30 to achieve June 2007 during International the Sudan government. A number “reduced impact of conflict” Development Questions. After a of UN agencies are also actively in several countries, including broad summary of the appalling working on or in Sudan from Sudan. The Delivery Agreement situation in Darfur, Labour MP the Human Rights Commission contains a specific section John Mann MP put the first to the World Food Programme. describing objectives in Sudan.52 substantive question: In addition the International As with Zimbabwe parlia- When does the Secretary of State Criminal Court has investigated mentarians across the different expect the second full phase human rights violations in Darfur parties and in both Houses have deployment of UN personnel and issued arrest warrants become engaged with Sudan. MPs to be on the ground, so that for government ministers and have asked 29 PQs (six at Prime the aid agencies can get to the members of the Janjaweed Minister’s Questions) and peers more than one million people militias. have asked six. Four adjournment whom they cannot currently The UK Government has debates have been held. Several access? When will the inter- been very active on the crisis in MPs and peers have a long- national community get its Sudan, not just on Darfur, and standing interest in the Sudan, act together when it comes to has backed initiatives for the as with Zimbabwe, and visits to Darfur?57 negotiation of a comprehensive the country have inspired their peace agreement in the south involvement. For example, Lord The then Secretary of State – with the then Secretary of State Alton (who also frequently speaks Hilary Benn replied: for International Development, on Zimbabwe) visited refugees The answer is: as quickly as Hilary Benn, flying out to take camps in Southern Sudan with an possible. The light support part in the peace talks in Juba. NGO,53 and David Drew MP, chair package is largely but not The United Kingdom also played a of the APG Sudan, has made three yet completely deployed. The part in the passing of the Security trips to all areas of the country. 54 Government of Sudan gave Council resolution that created As we indicated above, their agreement some time ago the provisions for a hybrid AU-UN parliamentary scrutiny of policy to the heavy support package, force. However, this diplomatic on Sudan is nowhere near as which would bring in, from pressure has not been matched coordinated as the government’s memory, about 2,000 UN by a commitment on the ground, cross-department approach. support personnel and other despite the desperate need for Oversight has been slight, equipment. Most significantly, troops and support. The UK has incomplete, and lacking in yesterday, President Bashir failed to commit any troops to the mission, although it has promised  CBC News, “Nations lining up for Darfur Peace-  International Development Committee, Darfur, 50 keeping Mission”,  August 2007. Sudan: The Responsibility to Protect, HC 67-I, TSO, 0 unspecified equipment. This is in 2 See the Delivery Agreement at: http://www.hm- March 200. treasury.gov.uk/media///pbr_csr07_psa0.pdf 6 International Development Committee, Darfur: The 0 RTE News, “Thousands to march for Darfur Day”, 6  Interview with Lord Alton. Killing Continues, HC 67, TSO, 26 January 2006. September 2007.  Interview with David Drew MP. 7 HC Debates,  June 2007, col. 7.

40 of Sudan indicated Sudan’s entered into, and we need and peers with experience and willingness to accept the to keep under review what knowledge in such crises, have hybrid package, following the further steps need to be taken, numerous other calls on their time. proposals that had been put to because commitments are 3. Chad him by the United Nations and not good enough; they must Zimbabwe and Sudan are the African Union. I welcome be matched by actions to high-profile cases that excite that commitment; but as ever, support the deployment. We media and popular interest and we will judge the Government should say to the Government thus they received some form of Sudan by what they do, and of Sudan, “We will continue of parliamentary engagement, it is very important now that to watch the steps that you even if ad hoc and fragmented. everybody makes every effort take, and if at any point you By contrast, Sudan’s neighbour to enable that force to deploy, fail to honour the agreement Chad has suffered from near because that will eventually that you have given, we will total neglect. Chad has been get in about 20,000 troops to go back to the UN Security subject first to large numbers of provide better security for the Council.” As the right hon. refugees from Darfur, and later to people who have suffered far Gentleman will also be aware, an overspill of the violence, but too much.58 however, not all members of Parliament has devoted little time the Security Council are in the The questioning then moved to the crisis there, even though same position as the United to the opposition spokesperson, in February 2007 the UN Human Kingdom Government, the Andrew Mitchell MP who asked: Rights Commission warned of a United States of America and potential genocide there; 61 and Surely the only way to bring one or two other countries though in September the Security pressure on the disgraceful on the question of further Council passed a resolution on the regime in Khartoum is to sanctions.60 situation,62 and plans are being impose tough international As can be seen, even when made to increase UN aid and to sanctions? What chance does PQs concentrate on a specific send in peacekeepers.63 the Secretary of State think issue, in this case the intro- The section of the PSA there is that that can happen duction of the AU-UN hybrid Delivery Agreement 30, covering through the United Nations, mission, there is little opportunity the period up to 2011, in dealing with a possible Russian for detailed examination of with Sudan refers to the problem or Chinese veto? If that is government policy and its effec- of spill-over into Chad. However, impossible, should Europe and tiveness. Opportunities were also there were only two oral PQs American go it alone?59 missed. The question of the Sudan on Chad during the 2006-07 To which Hilary Benn government’s acceptance of the parliamentary session, both in the reiterated the point made in his mission was important, but there House of Lords and both related first reply, thus: was no discussion of what the UK also to the crisis in Darfur rather was doing to support the mission, than to the specific situation in I agree with the right hon. which is as we have seen not Chad and broader regional issues. Gentleman. It is precisely much. Similarly there is no mention because parts of the interna- As is the case with Zimbabwe, of Chad in the Foreign Affairs tional community have been oversight is overly reliant on the Committee report that reviews threatening sanctions that we work of individual MPs and peers, the 2006 FCO report of Human got both the result in relation and their commitment to the issue. Rights. Although the Human to the heavy support package Although some MPs and peers Rights Report is a fairly compre- and yesterday’s decision by have built up detailed knowledge hensive almanac of human rights the Government of Sudan on through years of engagement abuses, even it only covers the the hybrid. Our position as with one particular country, often situation in Chad in a limited way, a Government, as he will be having visited on a number of looking at abuses associated with aware, has been extremely occasions, this often only occurs the refugee crisis. This is partly clear that the Government through the work of NGOs of Sudan must honour the th external to the parliamentary 6 Chad may face genocide, UN warns, BBC, 6 commitments that they have February 2007 process. Furthermore, the few MPs 62 UN Security Council Resolution 778, September 2007. 8 HC Debates,  June 2007, col. 7. 6 Chad: More aid needed now, but peacekeepers not 9 HC Debates,  June 2007, col. 7-2. 60 HC Debates,  June 2007, col. 72. expected for months, 7th September 2007.

A World of Difference 41 because the report focuses on visible cases. Gaps of years in ians led us to conclude that select human rights abuses rather than scrutiny even of the most high- committees simply do not have the conflicts and their consequences. profile crises are common. Much resources in terms of personnel As such it should not be a surprise oversight is carried on through ad and research capacity fully to meet that the Foreign Affairs Committee hoc querying by individual MPs or the obligations that are imposed chose to concentrate its limited peers acting on their own or with on them. 65 The case studies here resources elsewhere. But unfortu- colleagues on informal all-party reinforce that message. It is lack nately this is very much the norm groups to raise country specific of resources that lies at the root of for such low-profile situations issues. In 2006, the International the prolonged gaps in scrutiny of eclipsed by the not necessarily Development Committee did government policies in Zimbabwe greater humanitarian crises that publish a thematic report, Conflict and Sudan and the inability even receive media attention. and Development: Peacebuilding to engage with the situation in The FCO’s Human Rights and Post-conflict Reconstruction, Chad. Report is the only regular that made several recommenda- While there are various mechanism for regular reporting tions on the United Nations and mechanisms for informing to Parliament on dangers and international organisations.64 The Parliament of developments abuses in particular countries. The government’s response came and work, in theory at least, we report seeks to summarises very during the session under study have identified areas in which thoroughly the current human here; but that apart, there was no the official benchmarks and rights situation in countries systematic or strategic review of targets for departments, set out in around the world, reporting on how policies, such as the Respon- Public Service Agreements and the UK government’s policy sibility to Protect, work across the the FCO human rights report, and considering broader policy different nations in crisis, nor any fail to provide a comprehensive issues. When the Foreign Affairs assessment of how appropriate reporting instrument for select Committee reviews the report, it is the government’s responses are committees, all-party groups and driven by its very comprehensive in developing multinational and individual MPs and peers. There nature to be selective in what bilateral policies and practice. seems in particular to be no clear- it takes notice of. It is clearly The case studies suggest that cut linking of conflict prevention impractical for the FAC, which Parliament lacks the institutional and resolution and the humani- has a wide range of international framework for continuous strategic tarian consequences of conflict. issues to consider with a resource analysis of foreign policy issues The sporadic appearance of FCO base that is far from commensu- that are long-lasting, complex reports on UK work at the UN is rate, to attempt to cover all the and insoluble by the UK acting another problem. We return to this human rights issues that the report on its own. We have suggested concern in Part 4. covers. Therefore the committee above that the departmental We have looked at the contri- applies a filter focusing on the structure of select committees bution that MPs and peers can most dramatic situations and – and the strict demarcation rules make at an individual level and those where there is the potential that tend to govern their conduct also through all-party groups. for political traction; in other – contributes to their inability These informal collectives depend words, usually the most heavily to deal appropriately with the heavily upon individual efforts publicised cases. However, this necessarily cross-departmental and often the provision of external means that parliamentary scrutiny approach of government to fundings, since no parliamentary of government policy in serious conflicts and their humani- funds are available to them. situations in Chad and similarly- tarian consequences. The select In certain circumstances those placed nations is practically committees are however the main that do receive such funding non-existent. and most reliable instruments may find themselves unduly of scrutiny and oversight at vulnerable to the interests of their Conclusions Parliament’s command and can funders. (In 2005, for example, The three case studies illustrate often be very effective. In Not in the Commons Health Select that parliamentary oversight of the Our Name, our own analysis and Committee drew attention to the government’s policies in conflicts discussions with parliamentar- support provided by the phar- around the world is generally maceutical industry to various superficial and sporadic at best, 6 IDC, Conflict and Development: Peacebuilding and and virtually non-existent in less Post-conflict Reconstruction, HC 92-I, TSO, 2 October 6 See Donnelly, B., et al, Not in Our Name: Democracy 2006. and Foreign Policy in the UK, pp. 9-96, Politico’s, 2006.

42 APGs, including the Africa Group. “something to be done” are all funders 66(In 2005 the Commons too frequent without any further Health Select Committee drew substance. It is not enough to attention to the support provided draw an issue to the government’s by the pharmaceutical industry attention and to issue calls for to various APPGs, including action. Parliament should take a the Africa Group.) Neverthe- strategic view of the full breadth less, APGs can be remarkably of Britain’s policies and actions effective at plugging gaps in the in conflicts in which citizens take formal structures of scrutiny. The an increasingly serious interest. Associate Parliamentary Group on Major questions of resources Sudan is a case in point (see box). go unasked and nuanced policy The Sudan APG arranges regular alternatives are not raised. For meetings with the Secretary of example, do present troop configu- State to discuss the latest develop- rations, focused as they are on ments and government policy; southern Iraq and Afghanistan, and while informal, its regular prevent Britain from contributing meetings (six in the 2006-07 more effectively to the prevention session) provide some structure to of humanitarian disasters – for the parliamentary engagement on example, by providing troops for this issue. the AU-UN peace-keeping force However, though the in Darfur? Can and should the UK information gathering and sharing put more pressure on South Africa may prove valuable beyond its to bring peace and stability to meetings, there is little political Zimbabwe? Could action in Chad incentive for government to take now avoid greater hardships in the them too seriously in terms of future? policy and process. The political We are also concerned that cost for any failure by a minister in Parliament often engages in engaging with an APG is limited oversight of the government’s as such groups have no constitu- role in multilateral responses tional standing and their sessions to conflict only when the actual are private. Moreover, they are conflict has reached crisis point always going to be prone to act as and has received a high level pressure groups rather than delib- of media and NGO attention. erative instruments of scrutiny, Yet these are fickle spurs to because both their sponsoring Parliament’s democratic role NGOs or other funders will in oversight and scrutiny, and naturally be pursuing developed tend to kick very late and do not policies through any such group necessarily maintain a spotlight on and their members may very well long-running crises. Often earlier have priorities of their own. action in relatively unpublicised Even in those cases in which cases might yield more worthwhile Parliament is engaged, Parlia- returns. mentary Questions are the most commonly used instrument of scrutiny, but as we have shown, they are generally ineffective and accomplish little more than to keep an issue alive with the relevant minister. Calls for

66 The list can be viewed at http://www. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2000/cmselect/ cmhealth/2/2.htm

A World of Difference 43 Part 4 Conclusions and recommendations

DURING THE PARLIAMENTARY SESSION of an EU Reform Treaty (the text that has just come to an end, of which was agreed in October The prospect British troops were engaged in 2007) without any serious attempt a perilous holding operation in to canvass parliamentary opinion southern Iraq and in fi erce warfare on the issues involved. Indeed, of a stronger with the Taliban in Helmand the government apparently did province in Afghanistan. In the what it could to prevent any Parliament 12 months from November 2006 judgment by Parliament on the when the session began, some 90 Treaty’s negotiations by pleading British troops taking part in the ignorance on the subject before two operations were killed and Commons scrutiny committees. about 120 were injured.1 Just four Like the rest of the world, Britain months earlier, while Parliament found itself powerless to act in was in recess, the British outrages from the widespread and government had remained silent systematic murder and rape in over the violence against civilians Darfur and the bloody suppression during the Israeli invasion of of popular protest in Burma. The southern Lebanon, a military continuing occupation of Iraq was action that was widely regarded as the most urgent of these issues for “disproportionate”, privately even the UK. There were signs that the by some ministers, and during military high command wanted the 2006-07 session the Foreign to pull all Britain’s troops out of Affairs Committee was actively Iraq and General Sir Richard working on trying to convince Dannatt, Chief of the General ministers that they should formally Staff, made his disquiet public in recognise its disproportionate October 2006. 3 The occupation nature. It still remains to be seen was unpopular with the public, whether in the face of mounting with support for the action steadily evidence about the indiscriminate dropping off, dipping as low as Israeli use of cluster munitions, one in four people. 4 the government will reverse its Parliament had scarcely any assessment of the military action. 2 infl uence on any of these major Throughout the session, the issue strategic issues even though, for of the stand-off between Iran and example, the EU Reform Treaty the west over its nuclear ambitions was very much in the minds of remained tense and unresolved. parliamentarians and the public In June 2007, the government as Conservative (and some agreed a mandate for the creation government) MPs continued to call for a referendum. Moreover,  See: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/ FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInIraqBri- tishFatalities.htm; and http://www.mod.uk/Defen-  See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/ ceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsI- news/news.html?in_article_id=06&in_page_id=77 nAfghanistanBritishCasualties.htm 0&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct= 2 The FAC report was fi nally published in July 2007:  See, for instance: http://www.yougov.com/archives/ Foreign Aff airs Committee, title etc pdf/trackerIraqTrends_0600.pdf

44 MPs do not have the means to course of action, by securing ians’ expertise. We look at ways take the initiative on these or assurances from it prior to its of improving the overall “culture” other strategic matters. As we actions abroad. Parliament must of parliamentary scrutiny. We found in our previous study, rely, if it wishes to “mandate” the then discuss what difference the Not in Our Name: Democracy government to any degree, on the various constitutional reforms and Foreign Policy in the UK, 5 open engagement of ministers, proposed by Gordon Brown and the government in the UK has something which is rarely ministers could make, and might wide-ranging Royal prerogative forthcoming. have made, to the processes powers to make foreign policy In mitigation, it is often said of scrutiny and accountability. and wage war outside effective that while Parliament doesn’t have Finally we make our own recom- parliamentary control or contem- the power or the means to deal mendations for change, building poraneous scrutiny, and to fob with major strategic issues, it is on those contained in Not in our Parliament off even when MPs nevertheless good at the broad Name. or peers are seeking to make it sweep and detail of policy. It is accountable or are only seeking for this reason that this report Parliamentary scrutiny in information. Moreover, foreign eschews the major issues that practice policy does not largely depend on arose during the 2006-07 parlia- Our case studies indicate that legislation (aside from aspects of mentary session and concentrates Parliament – for most purposes, policy within the EU framework), instead on examining through the House of Commons – is no as do most domestic policy case studies in Parts 1 to 3 just more capable of keeping the broad initiatives, and so is not subject how good Parliament is at regular sweep of foreign policies under to the scrutiny and checks in and detailed scrutiny of the broad scrutiny than it is in influencing both Houses that the legislative sweep and detail of policy in three government policy on major process entails. Further, the areas of foreign policy: global issues; that its grasp on detail is government maintains firm control security, the European Union, fitful; and that it suffers from being of parliamentary business. We and the Responsibility to Protect almost wholly retrospective. In no concluded that government had – though in Part 2 we briefly sense has either House, any select “a remarkable and undesirable consider the attempt in committee committee or members individu- degree of power over Parliament”, at least to uncover the major ally or collectively been able to especially in foreign policy, question of the government’s hold the government accountable and that its prerogative powers negotiating position on the EU for policies and actions within “damage democratic oversight of Reform Treaty. Here in Part 4 we the sphere of traditional foreign the policies and actions of British draw together the lessons from the policy, even at the level of detail governments in and around the case studies discussed in Parts 1 to contained within our case studies. 6 world”. We detected then a 3. We identify structures of official (In its oversight of European degree of resignation among some target-making and reporting Union business, Parliament is in (but not all parliamentarians) – such as the Public Service theory able to call the government about the failure of Parliament Agreements that departments sign to account if its actions differ from and its structures to engage with up to – that could give Parliament any prior assurances it had given, the broader issues. Moreover and its committees some grasp, though Parliament in any case has just because Parliament, usually like climbers, on holds on the no power to force the government through one of its committees, has towering face of government to reconsider its actions.) The most investigated an area, there is no policy-making from which to that can otherwise be said is that guarantee that its findings will be conduct scrutiny. We consider committees and members have taken seriously by government (as how effectively these structures been able to maintain a degree Carne Ross’s comments quoted in are used and evaluate their of pressure on smaller issues of our introduction suggest); or that potential for broad and consistent importance, to let ministers know the public will be aware of them. scrutiny. We evaluate the strengths that they are under, as it were, Parliament faces an even greater and weaknesses of parliamentary parliamentary surveillance, and challenge where it wishes to hold processes, the resources that occasionally to gain concessions. the government to a particular members and committees can call One major cause of weakness is

 Burall, S., Donnelly, B., and Weir, S., Not in Our upon and ways in which scrutiny that Parliament and its committees Name: Democracy and Foreign Policy in the UK, Politico’s, 2006 procedures might be adjusted to remain under-resourced for the 6 Ibid, p.8. make the best use of parliamentar- task of keeping government

A World of Difference 45 under scrutiny. Committees do, the government to back the to bear on the government. as we acknowledged in Not in international treaty that seeks to The committee chair’s vocal Our Name, employ specialist outlaw their use and to end of the pronouncements to this effect, advisers on a freelance basis (and use of “dumb” cluster munitions. which were carried by various on the cheap) on their inquiries to However, there are as yet no plans national media outlets, were supplement their official research to work to outlaw “smart” cluster undeniably effective in bringing support. We highlight ways in munitions: they remain in service attention to this issue. Though which tight resources are not with the UK armed forces, and this episode shows how the ESC best used, in particular in the there is plenty of room for debate might be able to contribute to duplication of certain aspects of about what constitutes a “dumb” an issue already on the political scrutiny in different committees. munition (see page 17). Here agenda, there is little to suggest Our case studies also reveal collaboration within Parliament that the scrutiny committee could, strikingly the significant role and between it and outside groups if it wished, lead Parliament or the the non-governmental organisa- appears to have been a key to this media on questions which had not tions (NGOs) play in briefing limited success. In the case of the already gained public momentum. committees and members. strong circumstantial evidence (Arguably, the boldness of the One MP (who asked to remain pointing to Britain’s complicity committee’s opposition to the anonymous) said, in the “extraordinary rendition” government’s position on this of terrorist suspects, Parliament issue was partly a consequence This is actually a positive thing. was unable even to uncover the of its having been denied You can’t expect members facts and the basic dilemmas of an opportunity to effectively to keep up to scratch on the UK policy were not resolved. The scrutinise government on the myriad matters that arise, or to government evaded “coming Treaty in its formative stages.) have ideas about what to do. It clean” on its actual conduct and There are potentially a series is the task of NGOs to brief us possibly embarrassing the US of targets and reporting processes on events, and our business to government. However, close that could and should facilitate respond, and NGOs probably attention was brought to an issue scrutiny by select committees give us a more pluralist steer of actual and symbolic importance. of the departments at the centre than we would get from a The government was made of foreign policy – in our case horde of official researchers. uncomfortably aware that it was studies, primarily the Foreign We believe that the relation- under scrutiny where previously and Commonwealth Office ship between Parliament and it had not been; and it was hard (FCO) and the Department for NGOs is valuable and should be pressed through the work of the International Development enhanced, but select committees FAC, the Intelligence and Security (DFID). The primary set of such at least ought to have their own Committee, parliamentary instruments are the Public Service long-term research capacity so activities (PQs and debates), and Agreements, devised initially to that they can develop sustained the efforts of individual MPs, such tie departmental expenditure to scrutiny of government policies, as Andrew Tyrie, also chair of the tangible policy outcomes and and escape what is sometimes a All-Party Parliamentary Group to increase Treasury influence reactive tendency to follow media on Extraordinary Rendition. The over departmental policy and reports and NGO pre-occupations. extra-parliamentary researches expenditure; annual depart- We had hoped that we would and pressure from the British press mental reports; the annual FCO be able to point to “successes” in and television and foreign media, Human Rights Report; regular scrutiny and influence from the NGOs, the European Parliament, hearings with ministers, usually case studies. Perhaps the most Council of Europe and other on the occasion of European or effective example of parliamentary supranational organisations added international negotiations or action was the tenacious campaign to the pressure. meetings (e.g., as before and within Parliament to persuade The European Scrutiny after meetings of the EU Council the government to abandon its Committee’s (ESC’s) judgment of Ministers and European use of cluster munitions and to that the EU Constitutional Council or the annual World support an international ban on and Reform Treaties were, in Bank meetings); and other more their use. In this case the FAC effect, very similar is a second irregular reports (e.g., the FCO did engage with detail and won noteworthy example of parliamen- reports on the UK’s work in the a partial success by encouraging tary scrutiny bringing pressure United Nations). One of the “core

46 tasks” for all select committees is Human Rights Report, with its tight part here for they are vigilant in to “examine their department’s focus on human rights abuses, identifying and protesting about Public Service Agreements has the scope to address properly any lapses in the report.) Such (PSAs), 7 the associated targets questions of violence against reporting mechanisms would also and the statistical measure- civilians in situations of armed help across a broad range of policy ments employed, and report if conflict and the at times less areas – particularly when there is appropriate. 8 Obviously, the visible yet drastic humanitarian ongoing government engagement committees are obliged to pick consequences of such conflict. in a multi-faceted arena. and choose what they should Without dedicated reporting There is also the problem that concentrate their attention on; on these areas of policy, it is parliamentary oversight is not and in discussion with Mike difficult for Parliament as much only retrospective, but extremely Gapes, the FAC chair, it quickly as for government itself to assess retrospective in this area. became apparent that their cycles progress against the government’s Systematic scrutiny depends on of scrutiny demand long-term cross-departmental PSA target rigorous attention to the annual planning over years and over a to “Reduce the impact of conflict departmental and other reports vast canvas of global proportions. through enhanced UK and inter- which inevitably report on events Moreover, the committees don’t national efforts”. We suggest and actions which can have have the resources they need, later that this gap might be filled taken place some six to 19 or so either in terms of members or either by broadening one or other months previously. Add, say, six research capacity (we make of the reporting instruments, to 12 months for the committee and renew recommendations to or preferably by producing a to prepare and publish its report, improve the situation, see page separate report regularly on the and then a wait of normally up 56). UK’s responses, unilateral and to three months for the govern- Our studies, however, reported multilateral, to armed conflicts ment’s response – and then the in Parts 1 and 3, suggest that and their humanitarian conse- select committee’s follow-up, and the relevant committees do not quences. Dedicated and regular you are dealing in history. For take on the task of reviewing reporting would enable key civil example, the government’s 2005 their departments’ work against society groups to assist not only Annual Report on Strategic Export their PSAs as systematically and parliamentary oversight of the Controls was published in July thoroughly as they could, and that government’s responses to armed 2006 and reported on events as they do not make as effective use conflicts, but also possibly to much as 19 months previously. of them as they could. On the give early warning of humani- The Quadripartite Committee other hand, PSAs would assist tarian crises and to play a part report on this document came parliamentary oversight more in devising policies for conflict out in August 2007. 10 Thus fully if the government provided prevention and peace-building. government decisions came under sufficient quantitative and The existing complementary scrutiny more than two-and-a-half qualitative information against efforts of the FAC and the human years after the event, and by the which to judge whether they are rights groups, Amnesty Interna- time the government responds, say being attained. As we have noted tional and Human Rights Watch, after three months, the discussion above (see page 13), the Commons in identifying and protesting about on policy and action could be Defence Committee complained in any lapses in the Human Rights nearly three years out of date. December 2006 that it simply did Report strengthen its integrity and The situation with respect to not have the information it needed demonstrate how such cooperation scrutiny of European develop- to judge whether the MOD was can work well in practice. (This ments is different by virtue of correct in its judgement that it is probably a good place to pay the relative regularity of Council was meeting its military objectives tribute to the integrity of the meetings in Brussels, and the 9 in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor Human Rights Report, which constant flow of EU-related are we confident that the annual details abuses with what could documents. As a result, Parliament has greater demands made of 7 The PSAs and targets were introduced of course as be uncomfortable candour for a mechanism of Treasury control of departments, but they it, but also the opportunity to are capable of being used as an instrument of scrutiny by a government set, for example, parliamentary committee and members. on cosying up to the oppressive scrutinise government prior to it 8 Liaison Committee, Annual Report for 2002, HC 8, Objective C, Task 6,  April 200. regime in Saudi Arabia. The FAC 9 House of Commons Defence Committee, Ministry of and Amnesty International and 0 House of Commons Committees on Strategic Export Defence Annual Report and Accounts 200–06 (HC 6,  Controls (Quadripartite Committee), Strategic Export December 2006). Human Rights Watch play their Controls: 2007 Review, HC 7 (TSO, 7 August 2007).

A World of Difference 47 taking action, by questioning a of its members are from the There is a need to find ways of minister in the European Scrutiny governing party), but also that the obliging the Prime Minister, Committee before a decision government can undermine the Foreign Secretary and their is taken or a treaty agreed in whole process by framing itself colleagues to set out details of Brussels, or by agreeing a parlia- the motion that goes finally to the forthcoming negotiations, and mentary motion on a particular House for the formal closing vote their intentions, which do not legislative proposal. Indeed, (without debate). The standing undermine their negotiating the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution committee, the specialist body strength but allow Parliament to asserts the need for scrutiny to considering the proposal in detail, play a full role in scrutinising and have run its course before an EU may in theory adopt a motion sharing in policy decisions that legislative decision is taken. In expressing concern or objection are otherwise beyond democratic reality however, this Resolution to a specific proposal, but the supervision. Some form of “soft might deter government from government can quite simply re- mandating” is called for (see page disregarding parliamentary word any motion, paying no heed 55). Finally, beyond the constant scrutiny, but Parliament has to the committee’s conclusions flow of European proposals it no powers of enforcement. In or wording. Thus the system as must respond to, Parliament must addition, ministers are free to it exists can in this respect fairly also be able to carry out inves- contest whether such a breach be described as a “rubber stamp” tigations into important, more has occurred at all, even where a for the government; and the general European questions of committee has clearly stated what committee is rendered irrelevant. significance or complexity – e.g., it would consider a breach. Most We suggest various ways in on the Constitutional and Reform significantly, the “completion” which a standing committee’s Treaties or the euro. We question of the scrutiny process cannot original motion could be placed the duplication of this kind of guarantee effective oversight if before the House, alongside the inquiry between the House of the process itself is open to abuse. government’s alternative motion, Lords and the Commons, and go Both the European Scrutiny obliging the government to justify on to suggest later that the Lords Committee and Foreign Affairs it in debate. But we also raise the committees are best placed and Committees questioned the issue that the select committees most able to concentrate on such Foreign Secretary prior to her which are far better equipped inquiries. negotiating the Reform Treaty to deal with EU legislative or with European counterparts in non-legislative proposals in their Proposed government reforms June 2007, yet the minister’s domain – agriculture, say, or trade of Parliament obstructive performances rendered – are generally by-passed and It is almost universally recognised their attempts at oversight or the scrutiny takes place in the that the imbalance in power influence negligible. Given that, European scrutiny committees between government and in practical terms, European law which are less competent to deal Parliament damages parliamentary is enforceable in the UK to the with them. We consider ways to democracy in the UK and gravely same extent as is domestic law, remedy this structural failing weakens Parliament’s ability to prospective scrutiny is an absolute below. hold government to account. This necessity. But the prospective Parliament experiences equal imbalance, as we pointed out in element in European scrutiny is difficulty in making its voice Not in Our Name, is especially far from robust. heard when the Prime Minister or the case in foreign and external Part 2 describes how Foreign Secretary are engaged in policies, one of several areas of Parliament attempts to scrutinise negotiating a treaty in Brussels, governance where the government a constant and heavy flow of EU or ministers are taking part in may by tradition and through legislative proposals. It shows Council of Ministers discussions the use of royal prerogative how the procedures for this, the on policy issues. It is not possible powers (see page 7) act and make “substantive” phase of scrutiny, for Parliament to specify precisely policy without having to seek undertaken by the European what outcome it expects ministers parliamentary approval. The Scrutiny Committee and satellite to achieve and ministers are government’s proposals for the standing committees in the adept at evading scrutiny of these reform of Parliament, as set out in House of Commons, are not only processes entirely, by denying the green paper, The Governance balanced in the government’s MPs and their committees answers of Britain, leave unfettered favour (naturally, since a majority and preliminary information. the fundamental base of the

48 imbalance in power between government and Parliament – the power of the government majority in the House of Commons – and most of what flows from this power. However, the green paper also states unequivocally that royal prerogative powers are “no longer appropriate in a modern democracy”; commits the government to strengthen Parliament in these words, “The flow of power from the people to government should be balanced by the ability of Parliament to hold government to account”; and proposes to “seek to limit its own power by placing the most important of these powers onto a more formal footing, conferring power on Parliament to determine how they are exercised in future.” 11 The green paper also sets out other proposals for reform, relevant to our concerns, notably to give MPs the power to ask the Speaker to recall the House of Commons and to approve its dissolution, and to make the work of the non-parliamentary Intel- ligence and Security Committee more transparent. 12 The Prime Minister also made an important effective scrutiny, Otherwise, pledge on freedom of information to access information. Freedom six months later, insofar as the in a speech at Westminster of Information (FOI) can be Governance of Britain reform University on 25 October 2007, his inconvenient, at times frustrating process has gathered substance, “Speech on Liberty”: and indeed embarrassing for 13 governments. But Freedom of it seems that its proposals, Because liberty cannot flourish Information is the right course admirable in principle, will do in the darkness, our rights and because government belongs to very little in practice in the near freedoms are protected by the the people, not the politicians. I future to strengthen Parliament’s daylight of public scrutiny as much now believe there is more we can ability to call government to as by the decisions of Parliament or do to change the culture and the account in its conduct of foreign independent judges. So it is clear workings of government to make affairs or even to exercise that to protect individual liberty it more open – whilst of course influence over it (see Table 2 we should have the freest possible continuing to maintain safeguards overleaf). flow of information between in areas like national security. government and the people . . . The Freedom of Information Act This pledge will demand a  See for example green paper, The Governance of Britain (Cm 770,  July 2007) and subsequent papers has been a landmark piece of major change in the culture of branded as part of the overall Governance of Britain ministers and officials alike, but programme: the Ministry of Justice paper War Powers and legislation, enshrining for the first Treaties: Limiting Executive Powers (Cm 729, October time in our laws the public’s right if it does in practice free the ‘flow 2007) and the Leader of the House of Commons Paper Revitalising the Chamber – the role of the backbench of information’ from government Member (Cm 72, October 2007). Also significant are  Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm to Parliament, it would make a ministerial statements to Parliament, in particular those 770, July 2007, p.  by Gordon Brown of  July 2007 and Jack Straw of 2 2 Ibid, pp.6-2. significant contribution to more October 2007.

A World of Difference 49 Table 2 Gordon Brown’s reform proposals – what difference might they make? Proposal Comment Spot the difference

Parliament to be given the vote on The government will probably enshrine this The impact will be lessened unless the war-making (Governance of Britain reform in a convention (which some say government does decide to make this a Green Paper; Limiting Executive Powers, already exists after the votes on the Iraq war) statutory change that would strengthen consultation paper). rather than in statute law. This would give the supervision of military action both this and future governments “wriggle room” by Parliament and the courts. Parliament as conventions do not have the force of law could however decide to adopt measures of Acts of Parliament. for continuous parliamentary oversight of conflicts.

Statutory role for Parliament in oversight The government’s focus is on placing the As currently envisaged, no noticeable of treaties (Governance of Britain Green “Ponsonby Rule” convention on a statutory difference (though European and other Paper; Limiting Executive Powers, consul- basis. But the so-called rule does not treaties that require changes to UK law tation paper). guarantee a treaty will even be debated in will continue to need to be enacted by Parliament, let alone voted on. prior legislation requiring the assent of Parliament).

A National Security Strategy (Governance Parliament does not have the mechanisms in If mechanisms for scrutiny are put in place, of Britain Green Paper, Jack Straw’s place to carry out joined-up scrutiny of such this change could improve oversight of the statement 25 October). a strategy. Afghan and Iraq conflicts and domestic counter terrorism strategy..

Create new convention so that a Prime Currently, a Prime Minister may request the In most circumstances when the Prime Minister must seek the approval of monarch to dissolve Parliament at any time Minister has a majority in the House, this the House of Commons before asking during its five-year term or when the House proposal will make no difference at all. There the monarch to dissolve Parliament of Commons has passed a motion of no may however be circumstances in which it (Governance of Britain Green Paper) confidence in the government. The power to could make a difference, and it is arguably of request a dissolution gives a Prime Minister symbolic importance. significant control over Parliament.

Amend Commons Standing Orders to Currently only the government can request This goes some way to meeting our proposal enable a majority of MPs to request the Speaker to recall Parliament. This became in Not in Our Name that MPs should be the Speaker to recall Parliament during an issue when many MPs wanted to recall given the right to request a recall. But the a recess (Governance of Britain Green Parliament in 2002 to discuss the run-up to green paper sets the threshold too high to Paper). the invasion of Iraq and the government at be practicable; and where the government first refused to do so until Graham Allen MP has a majority (as it will usually do) then it organised a partial parliamentary debate at will normally be able to block such a request. Church House, Westminster. Further, the final decision remains at the discretion of the Speaker.

Introduce debates on the annual Could facilitate more involvement in shaping If they are to be of use, debates on floor of objectives of major government the priorities of external policy, rather than the House could assist in framing and giving departments on the floor of the House. simply responding to developments more focus and status to the detailed and, (Governance of Britain Green Paper) as we recommend, more systematic scrutiny work of select committees of department annual and other government reports.

Reform of the Intelligence and Security Whether the ISC will become a full-blooded Could make oversight of the security forces Committee (Governance of Britain Green parliamentary committee, equivalent to more open and democratic and would have Paper; Jack Straw’s statement 25 October). existing select or joint committees, is not yet brought scrutiny of rendition within the clear. scope of Parliament if brought about for the 2006-07 session.

Pledge in Gordon Brown’s Speech As we pointed out in Not in Our Name Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for on Liberty to extend the Freedom (see Appendix A), the existing FOI regime Freedom of Information, has stated of Information Act, to facilitate “the is especially restrictive over all aspects of (at: http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy. daylight of public scrutiny”. On accepting foreign and external policy, and the major net/2007/11/04/a-great-day-for-freedom- the nomination for the Labour Party global institutions with and within which of-information/ ) Gordon Brown’s Speech leadership (17 May 2007) he had promised the UK government works are themselves on Liberty is a “turning point” in the govern- “a more open and honest dialogue: frank excessively secret institutions. This current ment’s approach to freedom of information. about problems, candid about dilemmas study has also highlighted the reluctance For the first time since 1997, he writes, a . . .” (speeches, 15 May and 25 October of ministers to deal frankly and openly with Prime Minister has not only spoken out 2007) select committees and of departments to clearly in favour of FOI but proposed to provide information. extend, rather than restrict, the legislation. More effective parliamentary oversight of external and EU policies depends upon ministers and departments dealing frankly and openly with select committees in the same spirit.

50 Proposal Comment Spot the difference

Transparency of government expenditure It is agreed that recommendations made Could be used as handle for more scrutiny of (Governance of Britain Green Paper, Jack following National Audit Office review variety of military actions; but this remains to Straw’s statement 25 October). currently underway will be implemented by be seen. government.

More formalised responses to parlia- This is not the bold initiative, based on Could lead to popular campaigns gaining mentary petitions (Governance of Britain the experience of the Scottish Parliament access to Parliament, e.g., over cluster Green Paper; The Governance of Britain and other legislatures, that it seems to be. munitions or against the Iraq war or on other – Petitions) The government has stated its support for issues of foreign and domestic policy. e-petitioning, but is cooler on the idea of a committee on petitions and measures to ensure that Parliament takes petitions any more seriously than it does now.

Right of charities to campaign publicly There is growing support in civil society to Could facilitate greater involvement by (Governance of Britain Green Paper). broaden the role that charities may play in charities in parliamentary inquiries; assist public policy-making, but much will depend groups currently denied charitable status on the Charities Commission dumping its financially; and strengthen the ability of historic hostility to wider definitions of public organisations in civil society to contribute to education and debate. public debate and policy-making generally.

Plan to encourage more local media A more retrograde as well as futile proposal Local newspapers and radio are irredeemably coverage of the national- level policy than it appears. This is part of a package that parochial and usually trivial to boot. Skilful activities of MPs (Revitalising the Chamber emphasises plenary activity on the floor of MPs already exploit the local media well; – the role of the backbench Member). the House at the expense of the more serious could provide other MPs with a marginal scrutiny work done in committee. Parliament incentive to engage in national or interna- urgently needs to strengthen and modernise tional policy issues. its committee activities and other means of holding the executive accountable.

Sources: See footnote 13

The government, not unrea- Lords Constitution Committee on changes in parameters of any sonably, is concentrating on 23 October 2007, that this was the mission once it was embarked on. reform of two main prerogative government’s preference, though As for reform of the govern- powers – the power to go to war he referred to the possibility of ment’s treaty-making powers, and to ratify international treaties a “hybrid” approach involving Gordon Brown promised in his without parliamentary decision. changes to the Standing Orders. statement on 3 July 2007 to Jack Straw, the Minister of Justice He acknowledged that the “put on to a statutory footing and architect of the governance Commons Public Administra- Parliament’s right to ratify new programme, has published a tion Select Committee (PASC) international treaties.” But now it consultation paper War Powers and had advocated placing the royal has become clear that all that is Treaties: Limiting Executive Powers prerogative on a statutory, and intended is to place the convention dealing with war-making and so stronger, footing in its ground- known as the “Ponsonby Rule” ratifying treaties and has promised breaking report of March 2004. on a statutory basis. At present, a draft constitutional reform bill 14 The discretion that would this “Rule” stipulates that inter- in the New Year that would be remain with a government would national treaties must lie before subject to full public consulta- then be subject to clear rules of Parliament for a prescribed period tion and pre-legislative scrutiny. conduct rather than to the more of time before they can be signed. On the first count, however, the malleable regime of convention. It ensures a treaty can be subject government is edging towards A convention would have given to a debate in Parliament but does developing a convention that Parliament the opportunity to not guarantee that it will be, and is now widely believed to have vote upon the initial invasion it certainly does not commit the been already established by the of Afghanistan, but given the government to a binding vote As decision to invade Iraq – that is, cautious wording of the green the consultation paper on war that a future government should paper and the consultation paper, powers and treaties itself states: seek the approval of the House probably not upon the redeploy- “there are no known examples in of Commons for deploying UK ment of troops into Helmand or recent years of a vote being taken forces in armed conflict. Straw  PASC, Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening following a debate held under the Ministerial Accountability to Parliament, HC 22, TSO, 6 suggested before the House of March 200. Ponsonby Rule.” The government’s

A World of Difference 51 current proposals do not measure should “in general” be put on a ments, should express its own up to the declared intention to statutory footing and “brought dissatisfaction with this pace of give Parliament the “right to under stronger parliamentary reform, and it did so in its “Work ratify” treaties; this legislation scrutiny and control” to ensure of the Committee in 2006” report: would simply give legal force to a that “government is more clearly The government has not measure which is inadequate. The subject to the mandate of the responded formally to the practical impact on EU treaties people’s representatives”.15 proposals of the Moderni- will also be negligible as they The green paper promised a sation Committee and all require implementation by broad review of prerogative progress on reform of the domestic law. As a consequence, powers in general, but as yet system of European scrutiny the entry into force in the United has not produced a consultation appears stalled. … We are Kingdom of any European Union document. concerned at the lack of treaty (de facto, its ratification) The government’s plans do not progress and consider … is currently subject to a binding unfortunately include the reforms that the government must vote in Parliament – a vote on suggested for the European sphere bring forward its proposals … the implementing legislation in Not in Our Name, including without further delay.17 following established legislative those for which this report has scrutiny procedures. affirmed the rationale in Part 2 In brief, none of Gordon Meanwhile, the government and which we summarise below, Brown’s proposed reforms will will be able to continue making nor the well-considered alternative have any real impact on parlia- use of unreformed prerogative proposals for reform, set out in the mentary scrutiny of European powers to pursue the whole Modernisation Committee’s report issues in the UK and pressure for range of foreign and external of March 2005. 16 This report reform from any domestic lobby policies and actions. These was the product of a substantive is likely to be very limited. It may powers, a pre-democratic relic of investigation into the deficiencies be that the best hope for reform monarchical rule, give the Prime of the scrutiny system; and given comes from the new European Minister, ministers and officials the close relationship between the treaty – the Reform Treaty – which, the power to make foreign policy government and the committee if enacted, will formalise and without the approval, or even the – its chairman being the Leader somewhat extend the involvement knowledge, of Parliament. Among of the Commons, a ministerial of national Parliaments in the the decisions and actions that position – there was naturally process of European legislation. the government can take under some expectation that the The formal new powers given to prerogative powers, other than proposals would be implemented. national Parliaments by this new deploying the armed forces and However, what were identified as document are not wide-reaching, agreeing treaties, are: the conduct being “worrying shortcomings” but their implementation in the of diplomacy; choosing allies and in the European arena appear no United Kingdom and elsewhere developing the Special Relation- closer now to being addressed could arouse greater public and ship with the United States in than they were in 2005 – a state political interest in the whole defence as well as foreign affairs; of affairs that implies (at best) issue of national parliamentary negotiating within the EU, in a lack of commitment by the scrutiny of European policy particular on legislative matters; government to meaningful reform. and legislation. It is difficult to giving development aid and The Modernisation Committee’s imagine that parliamentary and humanitarian assistance; playing expectation that the subsequent public interest in the European a role in international decisions on Parliament might re-examine Union and the United Kingdom’s trade or climate change; contrib- some of the identified issues role within it will diminish. uting to the policies of the World has not been fulfilled either. It is Whether this continuing interest Bank, IMF and other international unsurprising that the ESC itself, and controversy will translate itself bodies; and representing the UK which actively contributed to into a better and more coherent on the UN Security Council. In the Modernisation Committee’s system of parliamentary scrutiny the Governance green paper, inquiry, and whose work is for what the British government the government accepted the impinged by the current arrange- does within the European Union is another question entirely. It is a proposition, made both by PASC  Op cit, Governance green paper, pp. 7-8. in its 2004 report and in Not in 6 Modernisation of the House of Commons Select familiar paradox that in the United Commttee, Scrutiny of European Business, 22 March 200, Our Name, that such powers HC6 – I. 7 See para.  of the report.

52 Kingdom, passionate debate about most stringent in foreign and and resources in order that it can general questions of European defence affairs), its control of better influence those policies integration is not always matched parliamentary business and strong openly in the democratic arena. by discussion of the detailed party discipline over its backbench Our recommendations for reform unfolding of this process. MPs and their loyalty to its from Not in Our Name are already In October 2007, Harriet actions. We also found that some on the table. We found then Harman, Leader of the House of Parliament’s own traditions that some of Parliament’s own of Commons, also issued the and working practices reinforced traditions and working practices Revitalising the Chamber – The the government’s autonomy in all reinforced the government’s Role of the backbench Member areas of policy. autonomy in all areas of policy paper in response to the Commons and our case studies reinforce Modernisation Committee Final recommendations those findings. In this section, report. The paper makes minor The re-balancing of power therefore, we augment and take concessions to its recommenda- between the executive, or further the recommendations from tions, but rejected two proposals government, Parliament and the our previous book and addition- to give more prominence to select peoples of the United Kingdom ally draw attention to the recent committee activity: first, for a depends upon fundamental Constitution Unit report, The weekly half-hour in Westminster reforms to the current consti- House Rules: International lessons Hall for ministers to give brief tutional arrangements that the for enhancing the autonomy of responses to select committee government’s wider “national the House of Commons, that reports (it would not “be helpful conversation” upon those makes a range of proposals to to require a Minister to contribute arrangements, citizenship and give Parliament more power as to a debate in this way before the values, upon reform of the House an institution in its own right; Government has had a proper of Lords, the review of voting to give more prominence to the opportunity to develop its response systems (especially for general work of select committees and to the report”) and secondly, for elections) and other reforms all-party groups, with powers for committee reports to be debated will, we hope, begin soon. In them to introduce legislation; on substantive motions. Instead, our view, this “conversation” and to enhance the influence the response took for granted the should lead to the adoption of a MPs have over the agenda and assumption that the Chamber written constitution, framed after business of the House (see should be the focus for attention popular debate and with popular panel).19 Many of these proposals on Parliament. We acknowledge approval. Not in Our Name also would prove valuable in making that the Chamber is the right place drew attention to other means by Parliament more independent of for significant and major debates which the government dominates the executive, strengthening its and is often an unparalleled Parliament and limits its scrutiny scrutiny of government’s external arena for great occasions, But we of policies through restrictions on and domestic policy-making, repeat our conviction (shared with the release of official information and shifting the culture of the 18 other observers ) that a modern (which are most stringent in Commons in a more proactive parliament must be a committee- foreign and defence affairs), its direction so that committees and based legislature with select and control of parliamentary business members could dispose properly ad-hoc committees delivering and strong party discipline over its of the new responsibilities that the detailed work of analysis and backbench MPs and their loyalty government proposes to transfer scrutiny that should then be to its actions. to it. debated on the floor of the House. However, Not in Our Name Priorities for reform also drew attention to other means Our priority here, however, is to by which the government could urge the government to strengthen dominate Parliament and limit and take further its Governance its scrutiny of policies through reforms and to identify more restrictions on the release of modest reforms that could improve official information (which are parliamentary scrutiny of Britain’s

8 See for example the detailed Hansard Society external policies – prospective Commission report on parliamentary scrutiny, The as well as retrospective – and 9 Russell, M., and Paun, A., The House Rules: Interna- Challenge for Parliament, Vacher Dod/Hansard Society, tional lessons for enhancing the autonomy of the House 200. strengthen Parliament’s ability of Commons, Constitution Unit, October 2007

A World of Difference 53 First, we urge Gordon Brown Constitution Unit: enhancing and Jack Straw to put the govern- ment’s duty to seek parliamentary the autonomy of the House of approval for the deployment of the armed forces in armed confl ict Commons abroad on a statutory footing, with safeguards that would preserve a The Constitution Unit report, The House Rules: International necessary fl exibility in practice; lessons for enhancing the autonomy of the House of Commons, to bring forward proposals that will give Parliament a genuine suggests in detail: right to debate and vote upon such treaties as its members choose; to l House or “backbench” a role in selecting members of begin the complex task of placing Business to be guaranteed “a select committees. the other prerogative powers on which it relies for the conduct of larger and more regular block external policies on a statutory of time”. The allocation of this l Select committees to elect footing as a matter of priority; and time should not be controlled their own chairs in secret to take forward the Modernisation Committee’s alternative proposals by the government’s Chief ballots. for the reform of parliamentary Whip but by a new Backbench scrutiny of European business Business Committee l Similar reforms to be for debate and resolution in the House. We have set out the introduced for bill committees, rationale for these recommenda- l A 30- minute slot every which should refl ect the tions above. week for the introduction of balance of opinion within Secondly, we reiterate our previous proposals that Parliament committee reports. Held in Parliament rather than the should shift its emphasis more the plenary, it would allow for balance of parties. emphatically towards developing members to vote for a fuller its scrutiny functions through select and other committees debate in Westminster Hall. l The government and adopt a more assertive monopoly over changes to the and proactive culture in its l More time in general for Standing Orders to be ended. dealings with government. The proposals of the Constitution consideration of committee Unit to strengthen the powers of reports l The Speaker to be Parliament as an institution and of “prepared to be an outspoken its committees are very important in this regard. More specifi cally, l Committees empowered public defender of Parliament.” MPs should make more thorough to propose bills, which should use of the provision under House be given priority l The chair of the Liaison of Commons Standing Order No. 137A that makes it possible Committee in the House of for select committees to work l Groups such as All-Party Commons to be elected by the together and produce jointly Parliamentary Groups also whole House. agreed reports. In Part 3 we have specifi cally drawn attention to empowered to propose bills, the need for a more cross-depart- again with means for gaining l Possible need to create mental response by Parliament to priority. a unifi ed body to act as a government policies and arrange- ments that cross departmental “collective voice for the borders and we recommend that l Backbenchers to be given backbenches.” Parliament should work towards establishing collaboration between

54 committees as the norm rather We have identified above the need the appropriate select committee than the exception, with a view to for regular reporting to Parliament in advance of other major inter- achieving “joined-up” strategic on armed conflicts and their national negotiations. If such oversight of external policies. humanitarian consequences and reform proved insufficient to Parliamentary orders that inhibit for the FCO reports on its work re-balance satisfactorily the such activity – such as those at the United Nations to be made relationship between ministers, relating to quorums – should if annually, as initially appeared to the ESC, Foreign Affairs, Inter- necessary be amended. In the be the intention. We recommend national Development and other immediate future, the Liaison that the relevant select committees committees, a case could be made Committee could perhaps fill the should press ministers to make for a “harder” form of mandating, gap with an external affairs sub- the FCO report on its work at the allowing the ESC and other committee (probably comprising UN annual and to institute an committees a degree of control the chairs of the Defence, annual report on armed conflicts over the matters on which it would Foreign Affairs and International and their consequences, or to be necessary for the government Development committees and provide suitable documentation to elucidate its position. These interested members). In the first on a regular basis. The Delivery recommendations are likely to instance the sub-committee could Agreement for PSA 30 on conflict require more regular evidence ensure that the relevant aspects promises to use “Quantitative sessions between committees of Gordon Brown’s Governance measures of progress … supported and the government. Ideally it programme are subject to full by qualitative and narrative is ministers who should interact scrutiny at the earliest possible assessments”. But it does not make with committees. However, it stage. (Owing to the parliamentary clear whether these measures may at times be possible for recess valuable time has already will be shared with Parliament. A officials to take their place, which been lost.) detailed document on conflicts, would require modification of on the model of the Human Rights the “Osmotherly Rules” (Depart- Strengthening committee Report, could describe conflict mental Evidence and Response scrutiny situations worldwide, relevant to Select Committees) which Select committees and members government policy and its work govern what officials may say in should make systematic use in supranational organisations, evidence in Parliament, to enable of Public Service Agreements, including the UN. A compre- them to respond more openly departmental reports and other hensive report of this kind would to a committee’s requests for such documents as a framework provide a base for a thematic information. 20 for continuing scrutiny. It is overview of the area, building on We also summarise here the to be hoped that they will take the recent work of the Interna- recommendations for the conduct advantage of the government’s tional Development Committee. of committees that come out of the proposal in the Governance green Here again joint working is likely study of Parliament’s handling of paper to give the Commons “an to be necessary. EU legislative proposals in Part 2: opportunity to debate, on the A great deal will also depend 1. Mainstreaming European floor of the House, the annual in general on government and affairs objectives and plans of the major individual ministers adapting an Government Departments”. Such appropriate response to Parlia- EU legislative proposals should debates could be used to frame ment’s requests for information be considered by the relevant and give focus and status to the and transparency. Indeed, we departmental select committees detailed and, as we recommend, recommend that ministers and instead of by the European more systematic analysis of committees should develop what Scrutiny Committee, thereby departmental annual reports and we describe as a British form making the best use of the more other government documenta- of “soft mandating”, whereby specialised expertise of select tion that select committees can government ministers would be committee members and staff potentially provide. The scrutiny obliged to state a possible range and bringing the treatment of of the FCO’s Human Rights of outcomes in forthcoming European legislation in line Reports by the Foreign Affairs negotiations and indeed to set with that of domestic legislation. Committee and of export controls out the government’s intended by the Quadripartite Committee positions to the European Scrutiny 20 For the “Osmotherly Rules”, see: http://www. cabinetoffice.gov.uk/propriety_and_ethics/civil_service/ are models of what can be done. Committee for EU actions and to osmotherly_rules.aspx

A World of Difference 55 Non-legislative scrutiny could be “Cross-cutting” inquiries should which occurs outside select mainstreamed in the same way, exclusively be undertaken by the committees. the House authorities with ministers appearing before House of Lords EU Committee should also seek to support the the relevant select committee for the benefit of both Houses. activities of All Party Groups prior to Council of Ministers The different “cultures” of the two (APGs) and individual MPs as meetings. The Foreign Affairs Houses should not be allowed an integral part of parliamentary Committee, whose work in this to prevent the formulation of an scrutiny. We welcome the Consti- respect is currently duplicated by effective system of interaction (see tution Unit’s proposal to empower the ESC, could alone continue to pages 29-30). APGs to initiate legislation, but hear from the Europe Minister or also suggest more modest reforms, Foreign Secretary in relation to Resourcing committees such as the allocation of desk European Council meetings (see We reiterate our previous recom- space to groups that exceed a pages 29-30). Were mainstreaming mendations that bear upon the certain size. We also believe that reforms to be implemented, the resourcing of committees and serious attention should be paid two other recommendations for Parliament. 21 Select committees to the Unit’s other proposals to reform made below would apply should have highly qualified give the House (or rather groups equally to the departmental select and knowledgeable experts at of backbenchers within it) greater committees inheriting the roles of their disposal rather than (as control over the House’s time, and the European Scrutiny Committee. is mostly the case) able young the composition of its committees. persons at the beginning of their As we suggested previously 2. Scrutiny of legislative careers. We also recommended in Not in Our Name, two further documents the creation of two new institu- important resources within the A motion agreed by a European tions, a Legal Counsel’s Office in grasp of parliamentary committees standing committee must have Parliament and a Parliamentary are neglected – MPs and time. In some direct expression in the External Audit Office to provide all our discussions with members formal House of Commons vote authoritative information and of select committees and officials in which the scrutiny process advice on which Parliament about mainstreaming, mandating culminates. The work of the could base its judgments on and other changes, they have standing committees otherwise is government policies. (The responded that too few MPs are critically undermined. There are first of these recommendations involved in committee work; and a number of possible procedural should be taken into account in that those who are involved do not adjustments any one of which the government’s review of the have the time they need to give would enhance significantly the office of the Attorney-General.) to their committee responsibili- role of the European standing In addition, our detailed study of ties, especially in view of all the committees. For example, one committees in action has made us other demands they have to meet. proposal is that a standing acutely aware of how stretched the We have several times sat in on committee’s motion is voted on relevant committees have been committees as their chairs and in the House unless the govern- when seeking to respond to events staff anxiously sought to summon ment’s original wording is itself around the world. We recommend up a quorum. In our judgment, restored by a vote (see pages that there should be an experiment as we have said above, Parliament 29-30). in the appointment of rapporteurs should shift its emphasis from to monitor specific developments ritual encounters in the Chamber 3. Cross-cutting inquiries – on their behalf, producing regular to systematic work of analysis A broader role for the House reports and raising issues with and scrutiny in committees. We of Lords? them when required. It may be agree with the Hansard Society The European Scrutiny that such officials could be partly Commission on Parliamentary Committee, whose resources are based at major international Scrutiny that select committees stretched, should focus on the organisations (such as at Brussels, should be enlarged so that so roles to which it is best suited and the UN or, World Bank). that they can perform their duties which it is most able to carry out Given the importance of the more effectively; and that the – the filtering and assessment informal structures and work great majority of MPs should of legislative proposals and the therefore be expected to serve robust scrutiny of ministerial 2 See Burall et al, Not in Our Name: Democracy and on at least one select committee. action in Council meetings. Foreign Policy in the UK, Politico’s 2006, Chapter 7, “The way forward” pp.8-20. Thus Parliament would be “main-

56 streaming” committee service the Treasury select committee did the government discretion and raising the profile and status over Northern Rock in 2007. But over whether or not Parliament of scrutiny among MPs and the given the absence of MPs from should be recalled – which rather media. Larger committees would Westminster during a recess, contradicts the basic principle facilitate our other recommenda- this is not common practice; that MPs should be able to effect tions that involve joint working however, their work would the recall independently of the and the use of sub-committees. 22 naturally continue unabated while government. The threshold should Reform of the existing parlia- Parliament sat for longer, and be set much lower; in Not in Our mentary calendar is also long some of the prolonged delays in Name, we suggested that it should overdue. The summer break of their work would be avoided. We be set perhaps at a third of MPs around two and a half months therefore recommend that MPs from two or more parties. This from late July to October creates give urgent attention to bringing proposal should avoid the mischief two kinds of difficulties. First, themselves up to date with their of party political opportunism as we have pointed out above, responsibilities. They should at while ending the greater mischief Parliament is often in recess least take less time off during the of executive control of the when an emergency, foreign or summer, a decision that would legislature. Moreover, it should domestic, occurs and therefore no doubt improve their standing be established that the Speaker MPs and peers are not sitting with the public. They ought at would be expected to accede to to ensure that government is least also to study the practi- that request; in any but the most held to account or that there cability of establishing an all- exceptional circumstances, it is is democratic debate about its year-round “rolling” Parliament an egregious idea that a single response to a crisis. Secondly, with only shorter breaks. Other member, albeit the House’s chosen time that could be devoted to organisations manage to continue representative, should be able to Parliament’s ongoing legislative functioning all year round through substitute her or his judgment for and oversight activity is lost. The staggering holidays and having that of a his or her colleagues. prolonged recess belongs to an quieter periods. Surely Parliament Finally, one function of earlier era when the role of an MP could do the same? Parliament is to provide a forum was not full-time and scrutiny of One pledge in Gordon Brown’s for public debate of matters of government was less demanding. Governance package does at least political and social significance. In our view, the accountability gap recognise the first of these two Parliament should continue to and loss of parliamentary time are difficulties, and the green paper work closely with relevant non- unjustifiable. Limited attempts commits the government to giving governmental organisations and have been made to address the MPs the opportunity to initiate the outside experts, especially in the problem. In 2003 and 2004, on recall of Parliament. However, kinds of partnerships which the the initiative of the late Robin the actual proposal is that it FAC has with Amnesty Interna- Cook as Leader of the House, would require a majority of MPs tional and Human Rights Watch Parliament sat at the beginning to request the Speaker to recall over the government’s human of September, before a break for Parliament; and that even then, rights policy. Civil society organi- party conferences. As the summer It would remain at the sations and MPs both benefit from recess also began earlier in July Speaker’s discretion to decide this interaction, as does policy (as a trade-off), this practice did whether or not the House of formation and ultimately the not produce extra parliamentary Commons should be recalled public interest within the UK and time, but it could have done. As it based on his or her judgement internationally. It is obviously in was, the practice was dropped in on whether the public interest the interests of committees and 2005 and the Commons voted not requires it, and to determine the MPs to continue working with to reinstate it in 2006. Provision date of recall. NGOs and developing creative has been made for written In our view, a prerequisite means to ensure that they gain answers and written ministerial that a majority of MPs should be the greatest possible assistance statements in September. Select required to make the request sets in analysing and understanding committees can of course meet far too high a threshold, especially external policy matters. But and hold evidence sessions during as when the government has Parliament could do more to a recess, as the FAC did over the a majority in the House, this showcase the work of NGOs and invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and requirement would in normal others, through closer engagement 22 Op cit, pp 9-9. circumstances effectively give with their ideas through

A World of Difference 57 organising seminars on key publi- cations, panels of experts, and so on. A balanced engagement by Parliament and parliamentarians could also counteract the trend of undue parliamentary dependence on media pre-occupations which often have a limited perspective and short-term focus.

58 A World of Difference 59 A World of Difference Parliamentary Oversight of British Foreign Policy

A Report by Democratic Audit, the Federal Trust and One World Trust 60