Peers criticise ‘split’ govt for ‘fudged’ response
Peers have criticised the government’s “fudged” response to their report into parliament’s role in waging war, insinuating that internal divisions with the cabinet are to blame for the alleged shortcomings.
The Lords’ constitution committee has today published its views on the government’s response to its report Waging War: Parliament’s role and responsibility, which was released in July 2006.
The report found that the government’s power to wage war was outdated and could not continue as the basis for legitimate war-making in the a 21st century democracy.
It recommended that a parliamentary convention be determined to involve the House in the decision to deploy troops, with the intent that the government should seek parliamentary approval before sending troops to conflicts overseas.
Responding today, the committee maintains that the government failed to engage with this central suggestion, instead reiterating previously stated opinions. Moreover, it suggests that the government appears divided over the issue, with a split apparent between the chancellor and prime minister.
The government’s response claimed it was “not presently persuaded” by the need to involve parliament, claiming that the government is elected to assume the responsibility of deploying troops and should take this decision.
However, the committee argues that, as parliament is also elected, it could make the same argument and “indeed the government draws its strength and legitimacy from a democratic parliament”.
Moreover, it points to divisions within government, quoting Gordon Brown’s statement from January 2006 that “a case now exists for a further restriction of executive power and a detailed consideration of the role of parliament in the declaration of peace and war.”
The committee suspects that Jack Straw is also sympathetic to its recommendations while Tony Blair and the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer are opposed.
The government was also criticised for failing to respond to the report until November, in a breach of an early commitment to respond to Lords committees’ reports within two months.
The committee disallowed the idea that the government was taking time to produce a considered document, retorting that the report’s total length of less than two pages “renders such an excuse unconvincing”.
Peers have now called on the government to address this “vitally important constitutional issue” in more detail.
David Cameron has previously argued that granting parliament a greater role in the waging of war would make the government more accountable.
Sir Menzies Campbell has also made the case for a war powers act, which would require parliamentary approval for a declaration of war.
