PPT Presentation: Watchdogs Report - Legislative Oversight of Defence and Security

Legislative Oversight of Defence and Security Dr. Oliver Cover Project Lead – Indices TI Defence and Security Programme 18th February 2014 Brussels, Belgium

THE PROBLEM

Defence Corruption is: DANGEROUS: It undermines operational effectiveness and poor equipment hinders the safety of troops and citizens DIVISIVE: it destroys trust in government and the armed forces, and between personnel WASTEFUL: The sector is worth $1.6 trillion a year. Corruption in the sector diverts resources from where they are needed

THE TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL DEFENCE & SECURITY PROGRAMME

Armed Forces

Interior Ministries

Defence Ministries

Police Indices, Research Preventive Training Anti-Corruption Tools

Arms Transfers

Fragile States

Defence Companies

Peacekeeping

WATCHDOGS: LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF THE DEFENCE SECTOR • First major spin-off report from an international index determining corruption risk in the defence and security sectors of 82 countries worldwide:  GI: assessor based; peer reviewed; comments from governments and chapters • Focus on legislative control of the defence sector to prevent corruption using three parliamentary functions: 1. Legislating 2. Oversight / scrutiny 3. Debate • Two principal ambitions: – Understand the quality of legislative control using index data and updated analysis – Push for change through recommendations and suggested tools

• Legislatures in two-thirds of the 82 countries have insufficient controls of the Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces, giving rise to high-critical levels of corruption risk.

• Strong legislative scrutiny of defence policy is absent in over 85% of countries.

• But 16 of the 82 countries have legislative controls in defence that reflect low or very low corruption risk.

WATCHDOGS FOCUS AREA 1: BUDGET OVERSIGHT AND DEBATE TOP PERFORMERS:

GOOD PRACTICE: POLAND

•Possess an independent, well-resourced, defence committee with strong powers of scrutiny over the defence budget.

Council of Ministers must adhere to strict timetable to submit budget documents to parliament, including: •Draft budget •Report on budget implementation

•Exhibit legislative mechanisms of scrutiny relating to acquisition planning and budget projections.

•Have the facility for robust parliamentary scrutiny of the defence budget’s internal audit procedures and outcomes.

The National Defence Committee can submit amendments, form a subcommittee for in-depth scrutiny, and , through the desiderata system, oblige the government to respond to questions on the budget in writing within 30 days.

WATCHDOGS FOCUS AREA 2: BUDGET TRANSPARENCY

TOP PERFORMERS: •Publish defence budget documents that are fully transparent, detailed, and accessible to parliament in full.

•Make both the approved and proposed defence budget publicly available, for example on government websites.

GOOD PRACTICE: NORWAY Publishes extensive information on the defence budget. MOD website displays: •Budget proposal •Enacted budget The MOD is required to report back yearly to account for how allocated funds have been spent.

At least 3 members of Norway’s parliamentary defence committee have access to the full budget, including secret expenditure.

WATCHDOGS FOCUS AREA 3: EXTERNAL AUDIT

TOP PERFORMERS: •Produce independent audit reports that are fully transparent and publicly available.

•Provide these audit reports to parliament to aid the institution’s scrutiny of government defence spending.

GOOD PRACTICE: JAPAN Board of Audit strictly independent, and empowered by constitution to audit state expenditures and revenues.

•Reports submitted to Diet immediately following period covered and made publicly available •Reports deliberated by committees in lower and upper chambers – each have committee dedicated to their scrutiny •Board’s senior officials always attend committee deliberations and explain contents •Board consults Diet when preparing audit plan and takes requests into consideration.

WATCHDOGS FOCUS AREA 4: POLICY OVERSIGHT AND DEBATE TOP PERFORMERS: GOOD PRACTICE: CYPRUS

•Have independent legislatures with formal rights to scrutinise and debate defence policy. They can veto, amend and approve proposals, including arms exports.

•Legislate to prohibit defence institutions from having financial interests in the country’s natural resource exploitation.

The Parliamentary Defence Committee: •Inspects the application of policies and operations of the MOD •Visits military units, enabling on-site oversight and to understand issues on the ground •Can call on evidence from experts; calls for experts are made publicly available

WATCHDOGS FOCUS AREA 5: SECRET BUDGETS OVERSIGHT TOP PERFORMERS: •Provide parliamentary committees with extensive information on spending on secret items, including line-item descriptions of expenditures.

•Provide parliamentarians with detailed audit reports of the security sector and secret programs.

•Regulate the classification of information through transparent legal requirements that are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

GOOD PRACTICE: SOUTH AFRICA The Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence is provided with full information on secret budgets over budget year.

•Debate of secret matters undertaken in closed hearings by the JSC and the defence committee •Detailed audit reports are tabled before the relevant Parliamentary Portfolio Committees, who can raise debate in the house if something of particular interest raises concern

WATCHDOGS FOCUS AREA 6: INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OVERSIGHT GOOD PRACTICE: ITALY

TOP PERFORMERS: •Provide parliaments and legislatures with the necessary resources and access to sensitive information to properly scrutinise all aspects of the intelligence services—including policy, budgets, and administration.

Reforms to intelligence services in 2007 on back of scandals. There is a new parliamentary committee to ensure conduct constitutional and legal: •Multi-partisan composition •Can call intelligence officials to give evidence •Able to inspect documents and intelligence service buildings in appropriate circumstances •Advisory capacity: can express proactive advice on draft decrees / rules affecting organisation or staffing of the security services •Has power to submit urgent information to chambers of parliament when it deems necessary

WATCHDOGS FOCUS AREA 7: PROCUREMENT OVERSIGHT TOP PERFORMERS: •Have long-standing and well-tried legislation covering defence and security procurement. No items are exempt from these laws, and they include specific anticorruption clauses.

•Have formalised procurement oversight processes in place that are transparent and highly active.

•Disclose past and future purchases, which tightly match audits of procurement expenditure.

GOOD PRACTICE: AUSTRALIA Various pieces of legislation: •Forbidding collusive bidding •Pressing for efficient spending, and consequently non-corrupt behaviour Joint standing committee can ask decision-makers to publicly explain rationale for spending.

‘AusTender’ website makes transparent plans and contracts awarded.

WATCHDOGS: POTENTIAL TOOLS 1. DEFENCE EXPERT CONSULTING GROUP • Convene a group of technical experts from diverse backgrounds.

• The group can be a source of expertise, assist parliamentarians and push for change.

• The group should be independent of the military (though may include retired military personnel).

• Well-respected group member will help raise public awareness and support.

2. BIPARTISAN BODY OR COMMITTEE • Create an independent, cross-party committee, possibly headed by the Auditor General.

• Receive reports on corruption in defence from legislators and the public.

• Facilitates anonymous reporting.

• Empower it with the ability to investigate reports.

• Report to parliament on findings annually.