Work Of The Joint Committee On The National Security Strategy In 2012 Second Report Of Session 2012 13 Report Together With Formal Minutes

The Committee reviews its work over the past year and calls on the Government to address five key areas of concern: i) The NSC appears to have focused on operational matters and short-term imperatives, rather than long-term strategy; ii) the Committee is not convinced that the NSC is making the contribution it should and questions how much extra value is derived from having the NSC as opposed to preceding systems; iii) major strategic policy changes appear to have been made by individual Government Departments without discussion at the NSC - most notably, the big policy decisions made by the MoD last year in Future Reserves and Army 2020; iv) the NSC appears to have neglected, or only recently discussed, some very central questions: the strategic and security impact of the Eurozone crisis; the planned referendums on Scottish independence and EU membership; and the significance of the US pivot to Asia-Pacific; iv) the Committee has not yet seen evidence of the Government pressing ahead with planning for the next NSS or giving serious consideration to engaging outside experts, politicians across the political parties and the public in its development. The Committee says that in the next stage of its work it will focus on the big strategic questions which the next NSS must address, and to take evidence from outside Government. It plans to hold a series of evidence sessions on: the UK's relationship with NATO; national security and the EU; the nature of our alliance with the United States; energy security; and food security

The Work Of The Joint Committee On The National Security Strategy In 2013-14 (HC 169, HL 1257) covers the work of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, which was established with a broad role; to consider the National Security Strategy. In practice, the Committee has considered not only the National Security Strategy (NSS) document 'A Strong Britain In An Age Of Uncertainty: The National Security Strategy' published by the Government in 2010 (see below), but also the wider strategy that underlies government decision making on matters affecting national security. The report gives an account of activities over the past year, highlighting in particular the evidence session with the Prime Minister in January 2014; draws attention to areas of continuing concern; and outlines objectives for the remainder of the Parliament.

Proposals for reforms for the EU as a whole are likely to find a more favourable reception than possible requests for further 'special treatment' for the UK. The Committee is sceptical that other Member States would be willing to renegotiate existing EU law so as to allow the UK on its own to reduce its degree of integration, especially where this could be seen as undermining the integrity of the Single Market. Other Member States appear to want the UK to remain an EU Member. Closer Eurozone integration is a potential risk to the position of the UK and other non-Eurozone states in the EU. However, the December 2012 agreement on the Single Supervisory Mechanism for banking regulation shows what the UK can achieve to protect its position. The Eurozone is in any case far from a homogenous bloc and the expansion and closer integration of the Eurozone does not therefore necessarily render the UK's position in the EU impossible or worthless. This report does not examine whether the UK should remain in the EU or withdraw. However, it agrees with the Government that, if the UK were to leave the EU, the current arrangements for relations with the EU which are maintained by Norway or Switzerland would not be appropriate for the UK. If it is in the UK's interest to remain in the Single Market, the UK should either remain in the EU, or launch an effort for radical institutional change in Europe to give decision-making rights in the Single Market to all its participating states

Government response to HL 115/HC 984, session 2012-13 (ISBN 9780108550379)

In this report the Defence Committee argues that the capabilities of HM Forces should be determined not by budgetary constraints but by a fully-developed strategy which defines the position in the world that the UK wants to adopt. The report urges the government to produce a comprehensive national security strategy in the first place and let that document, along with the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), direct the next Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). The allocation of resources will be based on national spending priorities set to meet the nation's security needs. There is a danger of defence becoming a matter of discretionary spending. Decisions about the expeditionary capability that the UK retains must be based on proper strategic decision making about the UK's place in the world and not simply flow from the "horse-trading" that surrounds the CSR process. The report points to a lack of understanding amongst the public of why we have Armed Forces. General sympathy and support for the Armed Forces must not obscure a hard-headed understanding of what they are for. The process of producing the next Defence and Security Review is the opportunity to engage the public in understanding the future of the Armed Forces. The Committee has very real concerns about the focus that will be given to the number of asymmetric security threats to the UK, such as from terrorism or cyber attack. The Government must think more strategically about the resilience of the country's critical infrastructure and recovery following an attack.

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees. On title page: Returns to orders of the House of Commons dated 14 May 2013 (the Chairman of Ways and Means)

Drawing on reports from committees, evidence from outside observers and academic research, this report concludes that two years after the general election and the Wright reforms, the evidence is "broadly encouraging" - although committees face some obstacles and there is room for improvement. The "old doctrine by which ministers alone are accountable to Parliament for the conduct of their department is being stretched to implausibility and there is a need for a changed approach. It recommends that the Government engage with the Liaison Committee in a review of the relationship between Government and select committees with the aim of producing joint guidelines for departments and committees, which recognise ministerial accountability, the proper role of the Civil Service and the legitimate wish of Parliament for more effective accountability. The report also makes numerous recommendations for Committees, including: that they be forward-looking in scrutiny of departmental performance, devoting less effort to raking over the coals of past events unless there are lessons to be learnt; give more attention to the financial implications of departmental policy and how departments assess the effectiveness of their spending; experiment with different approaches to evidence-taking, broaden the range of witnesses, and make more use of commissioned research; follow up recommendations to ensure that reports have impact and report to the House at least once each Session on what has been done The Committee intends to ask the Backbench Business Committee for time for a debate in the House of Commons on a motion endorsing its conclusions and recommendations