?
Chief Clerk
164€
снега
Pur. B
4
THE DEFENCE AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS SUB-COMMITTEE (DEASC)
1. As the Sub-Committee appear to be adopting a wide interpretation of their terms of reference, you asked me to consider the position of our official representatives appearing before them should they be faced with questions of a policy nature. Mr Sloman's minute of 4 December reports the latest thinking on the probable extent of the Sub-Committee's field of enquiry but paragraph 1 of that minute does not exclude the possibility that some of the additional points mentioned in his minute of 1 December might also be covered. Particularly in respect of Hong Kong, some of these questions do seem to go beyond what one might normally expect from a Sub- Committee of the Expenditure Committee.
2. The Expenditure Committee's terms of reference (which also apply to the DEASC) are as follows: "there shall be a Select Committee, to be called the Expenditure Committee, to consider any papers on public expenditure presented to this Ilouse The House of Commons7 and such of the Estimates as seem fit to the Committee and in particular to consider how, if at all, the policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the Estimates may be carried out more economically
3. The Civil Service Department 'Memorandum of Guidance for Officials' who may be called to give evidence before Parliamentary Select Committees states (paragraph 2) that "the general principle is that it is the duty of officials to be as helpful as possible to Committees .
It goes on to point out (paragraph 8) that the Expenditure Committee "would not be barred from considering the policy behind the figures" and that "there would be occasions when it would be proper for Ministers to give evidence before it". Paragraph 28 of the CSD) memorandum sets out the guidelines for the
It notes that officials appearing before such Committees. unlike the previous Estimates Committee, the Expenditure Committee may question the policy lying behind expenditure figures but emphasises that care must be taken in the interpretation of these Committees' interest in policy and adds:
"It is for officials to answer questions of fact and to explain the administrative reasoning behind a policy, and to answer questions in the field between day-to-day administration and high policy which might be called 'administrative policy'. Beyond this, the Committees' concern with policy should be interpreted as concern with existing policy, which officials should be prepared to explain and which the Committee will, of course, be free to criticise. It is not, in the Government's view, any proper part of the Committee's role to enter into the process of the formulation of policy, which is a matter for Government, or to put forward alternative policies
/to those
CONFIDENTIAL