A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only.
www.brucenixon.com
conflict is one of the most serious any state can make. A decision-making process that is unaccountable and
cannot be effectively scrutinised, is unacceptable.
The strength of feeling about the way Britain was taken into the Iraq war was shown recently when Peter
Brierley, father of a dead soldier, Lance Corporal Brierley, 28, killed in Iraq, refused to shake Tony Blair’s hand
at the reception following the memorial service at St Pauls. He said: "I understand soldiers go to war and die
but they have to go to war for a good reason and be properly equipped to fight. I believe Tony Blair is a war
criminal. I can't bear to be in the same room as him. I can't believe he's been allowed to come to this
reception. I believe he's got the blood of my son and all of the other men and women who died out there on
his hands."
Parliamentary approval for the deployment of troops became a major issue in the context of the decision to
take part in military action in Iraq. For the first time, a vote in Parliament related to the proposed military
action. Some believe that better parliamentary scrutiny would have led to a different decision.
Parliamentary scrutiny is part of the constitutional principle of accountability both to Parliament and the
people and ensuring that all issues are debated and scrutinised. Clearly information about the deployment
of armed forces should not be made public. Ways of enabling Parliament to approve the deployment of
armed forces, without endangering endanger the lives of service personnel or national security, are
described below.
Parliamentary scrutiny would include the decision as to whether to deploy troops but also crucially the plans
for the conflict. One of the key issues arising from the troop deployment to Iraq was the lack of planning for
eventualities after the initial military operation. The significant military experience in Parliament, particularly
in the House of Lords, could have been much more effectively utilised. Examples from abroad suggest that it
is possible to ensure the security of the armed forces whilst also allowing for scrutiny of executive decisionmaking.
Unlock Democracy proposes a new select committee based on the model of the German Defence
Committee. The Defence Committee in Germany is a departmental select committee, established in Basic
Law which, in addition to the scrutiny of Bills and defence related matters, has power to act as an
investigative committee and consider any defence matter of its choosing. The Defence Committee works in
co-operation with the Foreign Affairs Committee, with access to relevant security information.
Unlock Democracy propose a similar “Joint Defence Committee”, to act as an ‘honest broker’ between the
executive and Parliament. It would have a similar policy remit to the existing House of Commons Defence
Select Committee the key differences being:
1) it would consist of members from both Houses to ensure that expertise from the House of Lords is
utilised
2) the chair would sit on the Intelligence And Security Committee, giving it access to all relevant
security information
3) the committee would have the power to act as a committee of inquiry and therefore to require the
presence of persons and papers
4) it would have the specific role of monitoring the armed forces and any plans for deployment
5) it would act as a guardian for the rights of service personnel
6) it would have permanent legal advice
156