DOCSLIB.ORG

HOUSE of LORDS Committee for Privileges and Conduct 3Rd Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HOUSE of LORDS Committee for Privileges and Conduct 3Rd Report HOUSE OF LORDS Committee for Privileges and Conduct 3rd Report of Session 2013–14 The Conduct of Lord Dannatt Ordered to be printed 10 June 2013 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £11.50 HL Paper 20 The Committee for Privileges and Conduct The Committee for Privileges and Conduct is appointed each session by the House to consider questions regarding its privileges and claims of peerage and precedence and to oversee the operation of the Code of Conduct. Detailed consideration of matters relating to the Code of Conduct is undertaken by the Sub- Committee on Lords’ Conduct. Current Membership The Members of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct are: Baroness Anelay of St Johns Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Eames Lord Hill of Oareford Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Laming Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord McNally Baroness Manningham-Buller Lord Newby Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Baroness Scotland of Asthal Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Sewel (Chairman) The Members of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct are: Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Dholakia Lord Irvine of Lairg Baroness Manningham-Buller (Chairman) Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve The Code of Conduct and the up-to-date Register of Lords’ Interests are on the Internet at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldreg.htm General Information General information about the House of Lords and its Committees can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords Contacts General correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW (telephone 020 7219 3112). Correspondence relating to the work of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct should be addressed to the Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW (telephone 020 7219 1228). THE CONDUCT OF LORD DANNATT 1. Annexed to this report are reports by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct and the Commissioner for Standards relating to a complaint against Lord Dannatt. 2. The Commissioner has dismissed the complaint, and we therefore make this report for information. 4 3RD REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT ANNEX 1: REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON LORDS’ CONDUCT 1. The Commissioner for Standards has submitted the attached report dismissing a complaint made against Lord Dannatt. 2. The complaint was based on articles in the Sunday Times which alleged that Lord Dannatt (and other retired senior military officers) used his influence within the Ministry of Defence to lobby on behalf of commercial interests. 3. The Commissioner found Lord Dannatt not to have breached the Code of Conduct as there was no evidence that he had used his position to exercise parliamentary influence for personal gain, or to provide parliamentary advice or services. The Commissioner further found that he entered into no relationship which gave rise to an interest which had to be registered. 4. We recommend that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct should make a report to the House on this case. 3RD REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 5 ANNEX 2: REPORT FROM THE COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS Summary of complaint 1. On 14 October 2012 The Sunday Times newspaper published a series of related articles under the front-page headline, “Arms firms call up ‘generals for hire’”. The articles claimed that retired senior military officers had boasted of their contacts with ministers and former colleagues and consequent ability to lobby for military procurement contracts. Relevant extracts from The Sunday Times website are in appendix A. 2. Two of the retired senior officers named in the articles were and are members of the House of Lords: General the Lord Dannatt GCB CBE MC DL and Air Chief Marshal the Lord Stirrup GCB AFC. 3. The articles in The Sunday Times generated widespread coverage. On 16 October 2012 Lord Laming wrote to me in his capacity as Convenor of the independent Crossbench Peers. He invited me to investigate the allegations against Lord Dannatt (and Lord Stirrup) (appendix B). The allegations contained in The Sunday Times were also raised in the House on the same day by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, and it was confirmed that the allegations had been formally referred to my office (HL Deb, 16 October 2012, cols 1370–73). 4. I decided to treat Lord Laming’s referral as a complaint for the purposes of paragraph 103 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct. Lord Laming subsequently and very helpfully confirmed that that was his intention. He made clear that he was not personally alleging misconduct by Lord Dannatt (or Lord Stirrup)—rather that he felt an investigation was appropriate. I am reporting separately on Lord Stirrup, though many of the facts in his case are the same as in Lord Dannatt’s case. 5. The Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords is intended— “(a) to provide guidance for Members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their parliamentary duties; the Code does not extend to Members’ performance of duties unrelated to parliamentary proceedings, or to their private lives; (b) to provide openness and accountability necessary to reinforce public confidence in the way in which Members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary duties.” (Paragraph 3 of the Code of Conduct.) 6. Thus, my investigation is limited to the question of whether or not Lord Dannatt breached the Code of Conduct, not his remarks or behaviour on other matters. 7. I wrote to Lord Dannatt on 17 October 2012 (appendix C) to advise that I was investigating a complaint against him and specifically drew his attention to the following provisions of the 2010 Code of Conduct— “8. Members of the House: (a) must comply with the Code of Conduct; (b) should always act on their personal honour; (c) must never accept or agree to accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence; 6 3RD REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT (d) must not seek to profit from membership of the House by accepting or agreeing to accept payment or other incentive or reward in return for providing parliamentary advice or services. 10. In order to assist in openness and accountability Members shall: (a) register in the Register of Lords’ Interests all relevant interests, in order to make clear what are the interests that might reasonably be thought to influence their parliamentary actions […] 13. Members are responsible for ensuring that their registered interests are accurate and up-to-date. They should register any change in their relevant interests within one month of the change.” 8. Lord Dannatt replied in a letter dated 6 November 2012 (appendix D). Key facts 9. The allegations of misconduct by the member concerned arose solely from a newspaper story. The background to the coverage in The Sunday Times appears to be uncontested, namely that journalists employed by The Sunday Times posed as “strategic consultants” and approached Lord Dannatt. The journalists purported to work for a company called Heller Lightfoot, which was acting on behalf of a South Korean technology company. 10. The Heller Lightfoot personnel, who called themselves Jeremy Beaufort and Anabel Asher, established contact with Lord Dannatt and a meeting was arranged for 2 October 2012 at Lord Dannatt’s official residence in the Tower of London. That meeting took place and was covertly recorded by the Heller Lightfoot personnel. The subsequent articles in The Sunday Times are all based on the audio record made of the meeting in the Tower of London on 2 October 2012. 11. I wrote to the editor of The Sunday Times on 17 October 2012 requesting access to the recording made by his journalists of their meeting with Lord Dannatt. Regrettably, it then took me until 5 February 2013 to secure the relevant transcripts. The relevant correspondence between The Sunday Times and me is in appendix E and the transcript of the meeting with Lord Dannatt is in appendix F. 12. The scenario evidenced in the transcript is relatively straightforward. The Heller Lightfoot representatives claimed that the South Korean company they represented had developed innovative technology which could revolutionise aspects of military capability. Specifically, the company had developed two unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), one being man-portable and the other carrying ground-penetrating radar. Heller Lightfoot were seeking to assist their client in breaking into the UK’s defence market. Their initial thoughts were that the creation of an advisory board was an essential preliminary step. They were approaching Lord Dannatt with a view to his joining such an advisory board. His role and indicative remuneration were discussed. The discussion also covered how best to break into the UK’s defence market and the contacts and expertise retired senior military personnel could contribute to such a venture. 13. Lord Dannatt in his response to me said that he had done nothing to compromise the standards of the House of Lords and had not used his membership of the House to influence any matter inappropriately. He stated that he would register any relevant contractual interest in the Register of Lords’ Interests, but at the time of the article his register entry was accurate. 3RD REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES AND CONDUCT 7 Findings 14. I reiterate that my role is to investigate allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct and not to police members’ non-parliamentary activities. I have not found any evidence that Lord Dannatt breached the Code of Conduct.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Chief of Defence Materiel Makes Offer to DE&S
    Feb 11 Issue 33 desthe magazine for defenceider equipment and support New Chief of Defence Materiel makes offer to DE&S Bernard Gray’s message to DE&S staff See inside Technology Ambush hits Extension All-round Cutting edge on display the water of support vision engineering NEWS 4 5 Osprey is the star again DE&S staff have welcomed news that a soldier in Afghanistan has twice survived insurgents’ bullets thanks to the life-saving Osprey body armour. 6 Rivet Joint progresses The first of three aircraft in the Airseeker project, the US RC-135 Rivet Joint, has arrived in Texas for conversion to an RAF aircraft. 8 A clearer front line vision A programme to deliver thousands of world-beating 2011 night vision systems to the front line has been completed in short time by a DE&S team. feb Picture: Andrew Linnett 10 Chinook passes first flight test Flight testing of the first Chinook Mk4 aircraft for the RAF has taken place, another step in a project to deliver an essentially new aircraft into service. 12 Bridging the gap Soldiers on operations can now cross obstacles thanks to a portable bridging system which has been procured by DE&S. 13 Focus on base security Extra surveillance has been provided to forward bases in Afghanistan with new tripod-mounted short-range cameras. cover image 14 ‘Troops want for nothing’ Soldiers in Afghanistan ‘want for nothing’ and Bernard Gray has addressed staff in town hall sessions at Abbey Wood after taking over as Chief of Defence Materiel last have ‘the very best’ equipment, according to the month.
    [Show full text]
  • Gambling on 'Efficiency': Defence Acquisition and Procurement
    House of Commons Defence Committee Gambling on ‘Efficiency’: Defence Acquisition and Procurement First Report of Session 2017–19 HC 431 House of Commons Defence Committee Gambling on ‘Efficiency’: Defence Acquisition and Procurement First Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 December 2017 HC 431 Published on 17 December 2017 by authority of the House of Commons The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Dr Julian Lewis MP (Conservative, New Forest East) (Chair) Leo Docherty MP (Conservative, Aldershot) Martin Docherty-Hughes MP (Scottish National Party, West Dunbartonshire) Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Conservative, Rayleigh and Wickford) Graham P Jones MP (Labour, Hyndburn) Johnny Mercer MP (Conservative, Plymouth, Moor View) Mrs Madeleine Moon MP (Labour, Bridgend) Gavin Robinson MP (Democratic Unionist Party, Belfast East) Ruth Smeeth MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) Rt Hon John Spellar MP (Labour, Warley) Phil Wilson MP (Labour, Sedgefield) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/defcom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • The UK Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015
    Complex security and strategic latency: the UK Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 PAUL CORNISH AND ANDREW M. DORMAN* In its first Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in 2010, the British government committed its successors to undertake such a review every five years.1 Whichever party (or parties) form the government, the next SDSR is expected to begin soon after the May 2015 general election. In the meantime the machinery of government has once again entered the ‘phoney war’ stage of the defence cycle: preliminary work and positioning has begun prior to the formal start of the review process.2 This is an uncomfortable time for the UK’s principal political parties. The current government’s defence and security policy includes the questionable assump- tion that equipment spending can grow within a defence budget that seems set to shrink and against a pledge that the regular army will suffer no further cuts.3 Yet these contradictions are as nothing when compared to those experienced within the Labour Party. Labour’s defence team has indicated that it has no wish to be constrained by the current defence and security review timetable, which it believes would produce only a rushed outcome. Instead, a Labour government would hold a strategy review once the 2016 Comprehensive Spending Review has been completed. In other words, Labour would conduct a review, which it would describe as ‘strategic’, only after the defence budget for 2016–19 had been fixed.4 Further complicating this picture is the prospect of another coalition govern- ment. In their joint debate on Trident, Britain’s force of four nuclear ballistic missile-carrying submarines, the Scottish National Party (SNP), Plaid Cymru * This article was accepted for publication by the previous editor.
    [Show full text]
  • Depending on the Right People? Depending on the Right People
    Depending on the Right People? Depending on the Right People? Depending on the Right People British Political-Military Relations, 2001–10 James de Waal James de Waal November 2013 Chatham House, 10 St James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LE T: +44 (0)20 7957 5700 E: [email protected] F: +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org Charity Registration Number: 208223 Depending on the Right People British Political-Military Relations, 2001–10 James de Waal November 2013 © The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2013 Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) is an independent body which promotes the rigorous study of international questions and does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author. Forest Trends is a Washington D.C.-based international non-profit organization that was created in 1998. Our mission is four-fold: to expand the value of forests to society; to promote sustainable forest management and conservation by creating and capturing market values for ecosystem services; to support innovative projects and companies that are developing these markets; and to enhance the livelihoods of local communities living in and around those forests. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Please direct all enquiries to the publishers. Chatham House 10 St James’s Square London SW1Y 4LE T: +44 (0) 20 7957 5700 F: + 44 (0) 20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org Charity Registration No.
    [Show full text]
  • Mckinsey on Government
    McKinsey on Government Number 5 4 22 44 64 Spring 2010 Lessons from An expert Stabilizing Iraq: ‘Without taboos’: around the world: view on defense A conversation with France’s new Special Issue: Benchmarking procurement Paul Brinkley defense policy Defense performance in 28 50 70 defense Mastering military Supply chain From R&D 14 maintenance transformation investment to under fire Improving 34 fighting power, US equipment 25 years later Big savings from 56 acquisition little things: A dynamic strategy Non-equipment for uncertain times procurement 1 McKinsey on Government Number 5, Spring 2010 2 44 Introduction Stabilizing Iraq: A conversation with Paul Brinkley The leader of the US effort to revitalize Iraq’s economy 4 talks about the lessons he has learned over the 4 Lessons from around the world: past three years, the relationship between economic Benchmarking performance in defense development and security, Western misconceptions 14 A first-of-its-kind benchmarking effort compares of the Middle East, and the hardest part of his job. the productivity and performance of defense ministries across the globe, helping them pinpoint 50 areas of inefficiency and identify the highest- Supply chain transformation under fire potential opportunities. Deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan exposed weaknesses in the UK Armed Forces’ supply 14 chain and provided a powerful impetus for change. Improving US equipment acquisition The resulting improvements offer valuable 34 To address the perennial problems of cost overruns and lessons for other militaries’ supply chains. lengthy delays in its major acquisition programs, the US must introduce two elements critical to lasting acquisition reform: long-range budget planning 56 and objective portfolio management.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Treatment: UK Government Support for the Arms Trade
    SPECIAL TREATMENT UK GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR THE ARMS INDUSTRY AND TRADE SAM PERLO-FREEMAN • SIPRI • NOVEMBER 2016 The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources. Sam Perlo-Freeman is a Senior researcher and Head of the SIPRI Project on Military Expenditure in the Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. He is responsible for monitoring data on military expenditure worldwide. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) is a UK-based organisation working to end the international arms trade. CONTENTS 1 Background: A protected industry 4 2 The UK arms industry: A brief overview 7 The arms industry’s biggest customer: the MOD and its equipment spending 3 Previous estimates of arms export subsidies 13 4 Identifiable subsidies to arms exports 15 The UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organization (DSO) The Defence Assistance Fund (DAF) Defence attachés Official visits and other government efforts Export credit guarantees The commercial exploitation levy Total direct subsidies 5 Broader costs and benefits of arms exports for government finances 22 Government funding of military R&D by industry Savings to the MOD from lower unit costs resulting from exports Distortion of mod procurement choices 6 Conclusions 29 Appendix 30 Appendix A: A primer on UK military spending Appendix B: Estimating the ECGD risk premium Special Treatment: UK Government support for the arms industry and trade 3 1 BACKGROUND A PROTECTED INDUSTRY The arms industry and market, in the UK as in most other significant western arms-producing countries, has a unique status.
    [Show full text]
  • Bang for the Buck
    Deep reform to UK defence procurement is essential. As Lord Guthrie FOR THE BUCK MORE BANG notes in the Foreword to this report: “The shameful waste and delay which characterise the sorry history of equipment procurement should never have been tolerated. In the past, such indulgence was wrong. Now it is both wrong and unaff ordable.” More bang for the buck The Ministry of Defence must deliver better value for money. To do this, How we can get better value from the defence budget three guiding principles must govern decision making: the limits of EU collaboration must be recognised; equipment should be bought on the ANTONIA COX grounds of military eff ectiveness and value for money – not the impact on “jobs”; and the “conspiracy of optimism” between the MoD and the FOREWORD BY LORD GUTHRIE defence industry must end. Without such reform, public support for maintaining defence spending will surely wane. Price £10.00 ANTONIA COX ANTONIA Centre Centre for Policy for Policy Studies Studies THE AUTHOR Antonia Cox was a financial analyst, banking correspondent for The Daily Telegraph and a leader writer for The Evening Standard. She is the Conservative Party candidate for Islington South & Finsbury at the next General Election and is author of The Best Kit (Policy Exchange, 2004). Support towards research for this Study was given by the Institute for Policy Research. The aim of the Centre for Policy Studies is to develop and promote policies that provide freedom and encouragement for individuals to pursue the aspirations they have for themselves and their families, within the security and obligations of a stable and law-abiding nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts
    Ministry of Defence Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts 2009-2010 Ministry of Defence Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts 2009-10 Resource Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 26 July 2010 HC 258 London: The Stationery Office £35.50 © Crown Copyright 2010 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. ISBN: 9780102966251 Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID P002367551 07/10 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Contents Departmental Resource Accounts 2009-10 6 to 114 Annexes A – Core Data Tables 116 B – Public Service Agreement and Departmental Strategic Objectives 126 Performance Data Tables C – Public Accounts Committee Recommendations 129 D – Ombudsman’s Queries Relating to Complaints against the MOD 171 Departmental Resource Accounts 2009-10 3 Intentionally blank 4 Departmental Resource Accounts 2009-10 Departmental Resource Accounts 2009-10 Contents Annual Report 6 Management Commentary 11
    [Show full text]
  • Nato in Afghanistan: Democratization Warfare, National Narratives, and Budgetary Austerity
    International Security Program NATO IN AFGHANISTAN: DEMOCRATIZATION WARFARE, NATIONAL NARRATIVES, AND BUDGETARY AUSTERITY By HENRIK B.L. LARSEN December 2013 Discussion Paper #2013-10 International Security Program Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Fax: (617) 495-8963 Email: [email protected] Website: http://belfercenter.org The author of this report invites use of this information for educational purposes, requiring only that the reproduced material clearly cite the full source: Larsen, Henrik. “NATO in Afghanistan: Democratization Warfare, National Narratives, and Budgetary Austerity.” Discussion Paper 2013-10, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, December 2013. Cover photo: November 1, 2011 – NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan International Security Program NATO IN AFGHANISTAN: DEMOCRATIZATION WARFARE, NATIONAL NARRATIVES, AND BUDGETARY AUSTERITY By HENRIK B.L. LARSEN December 2013 About the Author Henrik Boesen Lindbo Larsen is a Research Fellow in the International Security Program (ISP) at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Copyright 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard College Acknowledgements I am grateful to Trine Flockhart, Stefano Guzzini, Carina Meyn, Joseph Nye, Sten Rynning, and the participants in the “After War: Governance in Post-Confl ict Societies” panel at the ISA conference held April 1–4, 2012 in San Diego for valuable comments on previous versions of this paper. I am grateful to Damon Coletta, Christopher Coker, Joseph Felter, Larry Diamond, Karl W. Eikenberry, Condoleezza Rice, and one anonymous source for ideas and interviews. I am grateful to the Niels Bohr Foundation and the Julie von Müllen Foundation for fi nancial support.
    [Show full text]
  • Procurement: Improving the Outcomes of Procurement
    The University of Hull Faculty of Business Law and Politics Business School Public Sector (PS) Procurement: Improving the Outcomes of Procurement Supervisors: Professor Christopher Bovis Professor (Retired) David Grant Candidate Name: Stuart Nigel Addy Submitted for: PhD Management Present degrees: MSc Management, Manchester Student No: 201114205 Word Count 96,474 90,786 Excluding Bibliography Date of submission: August 2020 1 ABSTRACT The UK public sector spends approximately 12.5% of GDP buying goods and services. Failures in procurement activity are not uncommon. The economic shock of 2008 and now the consequences of Covid-19 mean that preventing failure with better value for money matters more than ever. Failures usually lead to Government inquiries and studies by appointed ex-civil servants or businessmen and women. However, the ‘lessons learned’, recommendations and methods used to reach them are seldom subjected to academic scrutiny. The lessons are consistent and while some recommendations have been implemented, many have not. There appears to be an assumption that the lessons re-shape strategy and that revised policy mandated from ‘the centre’ will then result in beneficial change. One of the key theories in this study is that strategy must be generated simultaneously from top and bottom if it is to be effective, and the input from the bottom has been missing. Most academic studies into public sector procurement have focussed on a single subject in a reductionist manner. Whilst that may be helpful, only an analysis at the macro- level, throughout the structures of procurement is likely to highlight obstacles preventing beneficial change. Critical realism offers an ontology and emerging methodological approach that can tackle such a broad subject at the macro level.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy in Austerity
    Strategy in Austerity: The Security and Defence of the United Kingdom Paul Cornish Strategy in Austerity The Security and Defence of the United Kingdom A Chatham House Report Paul Cornish Chatham House, 10 St James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LE T: +44 (0)20 7957 5700 E: [email protected] www.chathamhouse.org.uk F: +44 (0)20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org.uk Charity Registration Number: 208223 Strategy in Austerity The Security and Defence of the United Kingdom Paul Cornish A Chatham House Report October 2010 www.chathamhouse.org.uk Chatham House has been the home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs for ninety years. Our mission is to be a world-leading source of independent analysis, informed debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world for all. © The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2010 Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) in London promotes the rigorous study of international questions and is independent of government and other vested interests. It is precluded by its Charter from having an institutional view. The opinions expressed in this publication are the responsibility of the author. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. Please direct all enquiries to the publishers. The Royal Institute of International Affairs Chatham House 10 St James’s Square London SW1Y 4LE T: +44 (0) 20 7957 5700 F: +44 (0) 20 7957 5710 www.chathamhouse.org.uk Charity Registration No.
    [Show full text]
  • Defence Reform Bill: Public Bill Committee Stage
    Defence Reform Bill: Public Bill Committee Stage Standard Note: SN06732 Last updated: 19 November 2013 Author: Claire Mills Section International Affairs and Defence The intention of the Defence Reform Bill is to implement some of the proposals for reform that have been made in two recent White Papers: Better Defence Acquisition, Cm 8626 and Reserves in the Future Force 2020, Cm 8655. Specifically, the Bill establishes the arrangements for reforming Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and turning it into a Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) organisation. It creates a statutory framework for the governance of MOD single source contracts and makes several amendments to the regulations governing the Reserve Forces. Second reading of the Defence Reform Bill was held on 16 July 2013. Library Research Paper RP13/45 examines the provisions in that Bill, as originally published. The Public Bill Committee held four general sessions on the principles of Bill at the beginning of September 2013. Line-by-line consideration of the Bill began on 8 October and concluded on 22 October 2013. The Government tabled a number of minor amendments and new clauses, all of which have been adopted. Several opposition amendments were pressed to a vote, although they were subsequently defeated on division. The Bill, as amended in Committee, is now Bill 118 of the 2013-14 Session. Report Stage is currently scheduled for 20 November 2013. Tabled amendments are available online. This note looks at the discussion and amendments to the Bill made during the Public Bill Committee stage, and the wider debate on the Bill’s proposals, in particular the establishment of a Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) model for Defence Equipment and Support.
    [Show full text]