Examination of Witness (Questions 75-147)
SIR GUS O'DONNELL KCB
10 MARCH 2011
Q75 Chair: Sir Gus,
how are you? Welcome, welcome.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Very well,
thank you.
Chair: Do forgive us for a slight delay
in inviting you in.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No problem.
Chair: You are very well aware that we
have been looking at the Cabinet Manual, a source of great
interest for Members of the Committee. We have taken extensive
evidence, as you will know. Our Report will deal with the constitutional
and political aspects of the Cabinet Manual and also will
be sent to you anyway as a late entry for the consultation—which
I believe you very kindly allowed us to do—on the questions
of specific detail within the Cabinet Manual. So this is
a little bit of where we are now, now that the consultation has
officially closed. We would like to know a little bit about that,
if it is possible to comment on that, and a prelude to Members
of the Committee going away and writing a report and hopefully
continuing what I think has been a very constructive interaction
with yourself and the Cabinet Office on these issues. Sir Gus,
would you like to open up with a couple of remarks?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Just on your
point about the consultation period, it might be worth saying
first of all we are looking forward to your response, so we obviously
won't be responding to the consultation period for some time,
until we have your Report and the Report of the Public Administration
Select Committee, who are looking at it. We obviously have the
Lords one now. We had around 40 replies to the consultation. About
a third of those were from members of the public, academics, the
church gave us some comments—the Church of England—so
a number of institutions. Basically, if I was characterising,
I would say mostly detailed and constructive, factual; although
there have been some differences of view. If I were to say one
of the big areas that I know you are interested in this Committee
is how much we say about parliament. On the one hand, we have
a lot of people asking us to put a lot more in and other groups
saying we should have a lot less, so that is one we'll have to
resolve. Some wanting lots of footnotes and some questions about
ownership as well; should this be owned by the Cabinet, some saying
it should in some sense be owned by the Cabinet Office, others
that it should be owned by parliament.
Q76 Chair: If I can
start with the last issue, I think the Committee will think long
and hard about how the Cabinet Manual interfaces with parliament.
If parliament is sovereign, if parliament indeed controls the
Executive—and we will not have a debate on that, we will
just take that as a given—then what is the role of parliament
in respect of something that details a lot of the activity and
action around the Executive? Have you had a chance to formulate
a view on that? Do you think parliament could have a constructive
role? It follows on from some of the debates we had last week,
where I think a number of colleagues felt a role would be quite
important, but equally, I do not think there was a great appetite
for line by line consideration in a Public Bill Committee or on
the Floor of the House. I had that sense from colleagues. So a
sense of legitimacy may well be quite important, rather than detailed
scrutiny. What is your view on that, Sir Gus?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think we
were very clear about the Cabinet Manual, that it is a
document written by the Executive, if you like, for the Executive,
but obviously it will relate to parliament, and I think it will
be very much a matter for parliament—obviously advised by
its Select Committees—as to how it wants to get involved
in this process. One thing I was very clear on, although it is
by the Executive for the Executive, we put it out for consultation.
We are delighted that Select Committees are taking an interest
in it, so we're very keen to get your views. Then it will be,
I think, for you to decide how parliament wants to look at the
document. As you say, you are obviously much closer to knowing
the kind of scrutiny that parliament will be interested in, but
certainly from the Government's point of view, they're saying
that they believe this is their document.
Chair: I think we will come back to that,
but we will get some other colleagues to come in.
Q77 Mr Turner: I
have to go, so I have the privilege of asking the first questions.
Who drafted it?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It was drafted
by civil servants.
Q78 Mr Turner: At
what level?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That's an interesting
question. At a range of levels. The people doing it originally
were in the Ministry of Justice. Post-election, obviously with
moving to a coalition, with the Deputy Prime Minister taking responsibility
for a lot of constitutional issues, a lot of the staff that were
in the Ministry of Justice transferred across to the Cabinet Office.
So the first version was drafted by Ministry of Justice officials
and the same officials are responsible for redrafting it now,
but they're in the Cabinet Office, because of the machinery of
Government change. But it was basically a work where the experts
within the Cabinet Office at various levels did drafts and also
took expert advice. They have some constitutional experts they
talked to. I think Lord Hennessy and Professor Hazell have both
told you in evidence that they were consulted by us along the
way, and we also consulted the Palace and the church in particular
on specific issues.
Q79 Mr Turner: I
think what quite a lot of us have thought is that it is not clear
what its responsibilities are, and in some ways, it is very unclear.
I wonder if you felt that was true, and how you would improve
it?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Unclear? Could
you give me—
Mr Turner: It is not clear whether this
is a technical document that is very accurate or a sort of general
story.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Okay. That's,
if you like, "What is it for?" I would say this is a
reference work, a guide for Ministers and civil servants, but
we also, by making it public, want to help in general education.
I gave a lecture on the Cabinet Manual recently to the
Institute for Government. I was very pleased to have a very large,
very wide audience. I think it has taken the interest of a lot
of people who are interested in aspects of the constitution, and
I hope will improve the general levels of knowledge. You are absolutely
right, we do have a kind of decision to make here. We could make
this a very academic treatise, we could footnote and reference
every single point, put in all the previous historical episodes
that relate to a convention, if people wanted to. I think this
would make it a rather harder document to read and might damage
its ability to be that kind of—I think it was Robin Butler
who said, "This is something that I want, there, available".
I can take it down from the shelf and just say, "What's the
quick answer to this?" and not have to wade through lots
and lots of footnotes.
Q80 Mr Turner: So
it will not necessarily be as accurate as a longer document?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I'd hope
it will be accurate, but the question is precisely how much detail
do you want? We could go down the road of a sort of Erskine
May, and I don't think that's what we want.
Q81 Mr Turner: The
House of Lords has come up with a whole page of things that they
say are inaccurate.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Like I say,
there will be questions about matters of fact. We will be very
happy—it's the whole point about having consultation—to
take their views. I think we'll find that on some of those questions
where they come down in one place on a matter of fact, other people
will come down in another place, very appropriately.
Q82 Mr Turner: Who
decides?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: This is the
document owned by the Executive, so it will be for us to decide.
Now, that's not to say that there won't be some things in this
document where people will still say, "I disagree with that"
but this will be the Executive's interpretation. It's not a legally
binding document.
Q83 Mr Turner: So
where the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party expressed a view,
Lord Wakeham, Lord Adonis and Lord Armstrong say it is not of
great constitutional importance but you are putting it in this—
Sir Gus O'Donnell: We put it in,
because I thought it was relevant to the 2010 experience.
Q84 Chair: This is
Nick Clegg's comment about the number of votes deciding who should
be first in line, as it were?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That's right,
yes. On reflection, I personally would like to remove it on the
grounds that I think what it reflects is a particular leader of
a particular party in certain specific circumstances of the 2010
general election. I don't think that constitutes a convention,
so I think it was relevant to the 2010 experience, but I don't
think it's a convention in the sense that it should be binding
on future party leaders who are in that sort of position. So one
of the changes that I will be recommending is that we delete that
footnote.
Q85 Mr Turner: I
may agree with you there. In the summary, the House of Lords said
it should be renamed the Cabinet Office Manual, it should
only seek to describe existing rules and practices, it should
not be endorsed by either the Cabinet or parliament, and most
important of all, it must be entirely accurate and properly sourced
and referenced. What is your view of that?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: In terms of
the name, I mean, Cabinet Office Manual, this implies it's
owned somehow by the Cabinet Office. I think that gets you into
all sorts of—what's the constitutional force of the Cabinet
Office, in a sense. Is this a document prepared by the Civil Service,
not enforced by Ministers? So I think it creates more problems
than it solves, to be honest. I would stick with the name of Cabinet
Manual, because this is a manual endorsed by Cabinet, it's
the Executive's position on these matters. So I think the existing
name is absolutely right.
Q86 Mr Turner: Most
important of all, "Entirely accurate and properly sourced
and referenced". Doesn't rather that—
Sir Gus O'Donnell: "Properly
sourced and referenced", we have had earlier versions where
we included these. They are very clever people. They can litter
it with footnotes, if you want. All I'm saying is there will be
a question about do you diminish its readability to the audience?
It's a trade-off, I think, but we can certainly put in—like
I say, we have a version with loads of footnotes. As a previous
academic, I remember putting lots of footnotes in articles I used
to write, and that was definitely good news to get it through
peer review and get it published in a learned journal. I'm not
sure that it adds to its readability.
Q87 Chair: If I may,
Sir Gus, some people are trying to paint the Cabinet Manual
as a sort of mini-Morris Minor, whatever, owner's manual, where
the carburettor is or where the spark plugs go. Some people may
strongly agree that the footnote from the Leader of the Liberal
Democratic Party was not appropriate, some may agree, some may
disagree, but you have just said that you do not agree particularly,
and you will rewrite it. This is a very fundamental political
question as to whether the party with the most votes kicks off
this process. Is it something that you should be rewriting, with
a very great respect? Isn't this something that parliament at
least should have a discussion about? This is something of incredible
significance and to be able to rewrite the Cabinet Manual
in these sorts of regards is a power that should at least have
some legislative oversight, rather than be—with great respect—in
the ambit of the Permanent Secretary, or the Cabinet Secretary,
excuse me.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That's why
I put forward the word "recommend". In the end, the
Cabinet will decide. This will go to the Home Affairs Committee
first. It will be Ministers that decide. What I was saying, my
point about this was that I think I thought it was useful to have
it in there with relevance to 2010. I think there's now been a
question about whether it is a convention or not, and I think
from our point of view, a constitutional point of view, it doesn't
represent a convention. So it's in that sense that I would say
it's better not there. What the convention should be, or should
there be a convention or not, is a matter for others. I agree
with that, most certainly.
Q88 Chair: But elections
are about the ability to remove Executives and the legislature
is in place to hold the Executive to account. I accept this is
the Executive, not yourself; I accept Lord Armstrong's view that
you have no individual personality, it is an institutional personality
on behalf of the Executive. Is this something that the Executive
should be deciding alone or on matters of such significance, isn't
there a role for the legislature to accept, endorse or legitimise
in some way these very significant statements in the Cabinet
Manual?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think, like
I say, if my recommendation is accepted, then there wouldn't be
a statement, so there wouldn't be an issue to endorse or not.
Q89 Chair: Abolition
of something is as big a political consequence as the creation
of something.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is, in a
sense, not. All it was there for was saying, "This is what
happened in one election". It's a statement of fact: it's
true, it's a quote. But the question is what significance should
it be given, and therefore I think that you cannot have a situation
where the way one leader chose to operate in a specific circumstance,
I don't think that constitutes sufficient of a convention. But
when it comes to it, if we have some future occasion, then this
will be for the political leaders to decide how to handle these
things.
Q90 Chair:
I am not clear whether you are not bothering parliament's pretty
head over this one because it is too important or it is too trivial.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I think
these will be important matters, but I think that they are matters
that will be decided by political leaders and it will be for them
to decide how they in turn consult their parties. Remember, we
are talking about a situation that could well take place when
there isn't a parliament. That in fact is what happened in this
circumstance. So it's not clear to me how you would consult parliament
if there isn't a parliament.
Q91 Chair: I do not
wish to labour this too much, but there obviously needs to be
provision when there is not a parliament, and there is a very
strong argument about parliament not sitting, that the period
that we do not have a parliament is far too long and that the
newly-elected parliament should have at least been reconvened
after that tremendous political exercise of legitimising a brand
new parliament, rather than having just party leaders deciding
stuff. But maybe I am straying a little too far there, but I think
the Executive, frankly, needs to sort out what its relationship
is with parliament. Either we believe in parliament sovereignty
or we let the servants of the Executive decide what goes in or
out of a manual, depending upon their view.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I can stress
it won't be the servants that decide. They advise, but they won't
decide.
Q92 Tristram Hunt:
Can I just initially take up from where Andrew left? It is always
good when writing something to have your ideal reader in mind,
and is your ideal reader a grade 7 civil servant pulling this
down from the shelf to think about a submission he is making or
is it a junior Cabinet Minister, wanting to know the ropes, or
is it both or none? Who is your ideal reader?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is Ministers
and civil servants, so civil servants in their private office,
and civil servants drafting legislation. It's a first port of
call. It's by no means sufficient, and I think when you had Lord
Adonis here, he said, "If you're writing a guide for Ministers,
this is a small part of it, a small but essential part, let's
say, of understanding the rules and conventions, but about how
to be a good Minister, there's a whole set of other things as
well". Just a part.
Tristram Hunt: Fiction, non-fiction?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Indeed.
Q93 Tristram Hunt:
More broadly, one of the criticisms we have heard is the idea
that it is neither fish nor fowl, so everything we hear from you
is in terms of its technical technocratic utility, in a sense.
Others—we go back to Gordon Brown's initial speech—think
of this as potentially the beginnings of the road to a written
constitution, and obviously that is not going to be spelt out,
but it begins the brick-laying process. First of all, where do
you see its relationship with a move or not a move towards a written
constitution?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am at the
modest end here. Like I say, the Cabinet Manual is bringing
together existing rules and conventions. It's a guide, it's not
legally binding and I don't believe it's the first step towards
a written constitution, but there are others who will want to
try and use it as such, and that's for them. But personally, I've
always been at the, "This is modest, useful guidance"
end.
Q94 Tristram Hunt:
So in that context, you do not regard it, which is another of
the criticisms we have heard, that such a significant document,
as some regard it, having such a limited time period for public
consultation and debate—and to be frank, the Government
has not exactly gone on the front foot about, "Let us have
a wide range of debate about this document", it has been
a rather subscribed process—you do not think that criticism
will arise, because of the nature of the document?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: We have had
three months' consultation. One of the chapters, the draft on
hung parliaments, went to the Justice Committee. There are now
three Select Committees of parliament, one Lords, two Commons,
who are taking evidence on it, reviewing it, will write reports
on it. We'll wait for that evidence. It seems to me that's pretty
good involvement.
Q95 Tristram Hunt:
Just sort of extending that point, why might you think—without
putting yourself in the position of the House of Lords' Committee—that
parliament's relationship with the Cabinet Manual would
be so different to New Zealand's relationship with their own manual,
given the same sort of inspiration behind the document?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is quite
similar. In New Zealand, it's called the Cabinet Manual.
It's endorsed by new Cabinets, it seems almost every five to six
years, I think, and it's updated as changes take place, but not
kind of every few days.
Q96 Tristram Hunt:
So I think that the parliament there seems to have much greater
ownership over the document.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think they
would say—when I went to New Zealand to talk to them about
it—that this was the document that Cabinet owned. That's
their view about it.
Q97 Tristram Hunt:
Do you think, finally, Sir Gus, you are a nervous back-bench Member
of Parliament, worried about your place in the world, that you
would want to have slightly greater engagement and involvement
and ownership over such a potentially interesting document?
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
This particular document is the Executive's document, talking
about how the Executive sees things. There's nothing to stop parliament,
you as a back-bencher, deciding that parliament could put forward
various ideas. I mean, we are consulting you. There is nothing
to stop parliament deciding to lay down a document that explains
its rules and conventions. It's entirely in your hands.
Q98 Chair: Why is
there a presumption that it is not going to be out there, rather
than a presumption that it should be out there, unless there are
bits of it that ought to be kept under wraps?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: How do you
mean, "not going to be out there"?
Chair: In terms of being a legal, legitimate,
transparent and open process, where the elected parliament of
this country has some role to play in its legitimation.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I'm here before
a Select Committee, being questioned about this document. You're
going to give us a report with your views on it, as will another
Select Committee of parliament, as will a Select Committee in
the House of Lords. But this is a Government document. They believe
that they own this document.
Q99 Chair: Doesn't
parliament own the Government in our constitutional theory; is
that not true?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Parliament
is of course sovereign, yes.
Q100 Chair: You speak
for the Executive, Sir Gus, but you said you did not think that
this process, this initiation of a Cabinet Manual was anything
to do with a written constitution. The Prime Minister of the day
stated—and I can read it again, because I did read it to
you the last time you came here—that this was an initiation.
That was not his words, but I think I can do something better
than that, "I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to lead work
to consolidate the existing unwritten piecemeal conventions that
govern much of the way central Government operates under our existing
constitution into a single written document. There is a wider
issue, the question of a written constitution, an issue on which
I hope all parties can work together in a spirit of partnership
and patriotism". But you do not think that?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No.
Q101 Chair: You disagreed
with the Prime Minister pretty rapidly thereafter. You just think
this is a technical, internal car manual, owner's manual?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I did what
the previous Prime Minister asked me to do, "Lead work to
consolidate the existing unwritten piecemeal conventions".
So I've done that into a single written document, as the Prime
Minister told me to do. That's what I've done. The further work
in the end didn't happen because of the election. It's for governments
to decide whether they want to go further down that route, but
there are no plans for the current Government to do so.
Q102 Chair: The Prime
Minister's announcement of, "The creation of a working group
to identify the principles that would be included in a written
constitution", that just ground to a halt and has not been
revived by the current Government so far?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That's right.
Q103 Mr Hamilton: Sir
Gus, in your foreword to the Cabinet Manual, you say that
it is intended to guide, not to direct, but a number of the witnesses
we have had before us have suggested the opposite. In fact, Dr
Michael Pinto-Duschinsky said, "It is inherently difficult,
if not impossible, for a written document to list existing, often
unwritten, rules, conventions and precedents without interpreting
and changing them in the process". Do you feel that he is
wrong? Have you had to interpret or indeed decide on particular
precedents that were unwritten, and therefore were vague and open
to interpretation? Have you had to interpret in the Cabinet
Manual?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think we've
taken some judgement calls there, that's certainly true, and there
may well be in due course some debate about whether those judgements
are correct or not, but these judgements are judgements that will
be considered by Ministers, and Ministers will decide whether
they want these included or not. That's what will end up in the
final version.
Q104 Mr Hamilton:
You are very clear that it is a guide and it is not there to direct,
but I put it to you again: surely in some cases, in some parts
of the Cabinet Manual, it can be prescriptive, if it is
taking a certain interpretation of something that was previously
unwritten.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Let's take
a good example, where I know there was some lively debate about
the question of the Prime Minister, should the Prime Minister
resign, that issue.
Mr Hamilton: Yes, indeed.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is a good
one, and Lord Adonis gave you a clear view there, that whatever
one can put in here, the Cabinet Manual, about the expectations
and what the conventions are and all the rest of it, a future
Prime Minister could just decide to do whatever they wanted and
that it wouldn't be binding on them. A future Prime Minister could
say, "I know what the conventions are, but I'm resigning
straight away". That's it.
Q105 Mr Hamilton:
The very fact this Cabinet Manual exists and will continue
to exist would not influence any future Prime Minister, in your
view?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think the
existence of previous conventions would influence Prime Ministerial
behaviour, most certainly, and the Cabinet Manual helps
in the sense of bringing those together in some way. But it's
not legally binding, and a Prime Minister could decide to ignore
them.
Q106 Mr Hamilton:
Can I come back to the issue—I know you are probably fed
up with this—about it being a precursor to a written constitution?
Dr Wilks-Hegg gave evidence to us last week, from Democratic Audit
and he states that the document can be regarded as a sort of substitute
for what would typically be found in a written constitution in
most democracies. Now, notwithstanding what the previous Prime
Minister's intentions were, do you see this as a basis for parliament
then perhaps discussing a potential written constitution in the
future? Would the Cabinet Manual be used as the foundation
for that, or is it simply not comprehensive enough? In your own
words, it does not have the footnotes and the references.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Indeed, indeed.
I mean, as a guide to existing rules and conventions, I think
when I was here the last time I said, "You could think of
this as a first step". But a written constitution would be
something much bigger. It's that part of the work that the previous
Prime Minister was thinking about doing a lot on, but in the end,
like I say, he ran out of time.
Q107 Mr Hamilton:
What, in your view, is the constitutional status therefore of
this Cabinet Manual?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It's as I say in
the foreword, it's a guide. That's its status.
Mr Hamilton: No more, no less?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No more, no
less.
Q108 Mr Hamilton:
Therefore, because it is a guide, you do not feel—and presumably
the Civil Service does not feel—it is something that parliament
should be discussing in detail? Of course Select Committees are
scrutinising it, as you would expect us to, and you pointed out
the importance of that, because parliament is sovereign, but you
do not believe it is something we should take apart on the Floor
of the House and introduce any primary legislation to legitimate
it?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I don't think
it's right for me to have a view about that. This is a document
that I'm preparing for the Executive about the Executive. It's
for parliament to decide what it wants to do with it and that's
your decision, not mine.
Mr Hamilton: Thank you very much.
Q109 Stephen Williams: Just
broadly a similar theme about how much it directs behaviour or
shapes behaviour of the Cabinet themselves. In the foreword to
the document, your own foreword, you described it as, "It
is intended to guide, not direct" and in answer to Tristram
just now, you said it was, "Modest, useful guidance".
We are spending a lot of time discussing this, and Committees
in other places are spending a lot of time discussing this, and
it is just, "Modest, useful guidance". How important
do you think this Cabinet Manual should be viewed?
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
I am very pleased that it is getting the scrutiny that it's getting,
because I think, "Modest, useful guidance" is right,
but this is guidance about very important issues. If you just
read down the chapter headings, you will see this is pretty important
stuff, and I think that the fact that we had the chapter on elections
and government formation out ahead of the previous election helped
considerably in terms of the nature of the debate and public understanding.
So I think there are very important issues here. I'm just saying
this is a modest contribution to it and it's a view from one particular
player in this, which is namely the Executive.
Q110 Stephen Williams:
Given it is primarily for the Executive, and therefore for Ministers,
how much weight do you think future Ministers or current Ministers
will give the document once it is finalised? Do Ministers have
an induction process from you?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: There is a
ministerial induction process, yes. When the Cabinet Manual is
finished, I would expect to send a copy of this around to all
ministerial offices and to be sure that their private secretaries
were very aware of the document, and if there came to be an issue
about any ministerial code or whatever, they would first refer
to this document.
Q111 Stephen Williams:
So if a Minister—or for that matter, one of your officials
further down the tree than you—were to depart from the modest
guidance in the manual, what is the redress? To follow the Chair's
analogy, if it was a Haynes car guide, if you do something wrong
the exhaust falls off, but if this is only modest guidance, then
presumably it may be mild embarrassment to an official or a Minister
or maybe no one would know that we had departed from the modest,
useful guidance.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: In that sense,
it's guidance, but it's about rules and conventions, and there
are certain areas where there are rules where it would be very
serious for someone to depart from it. There are things like the
ministerial code. Departures from the ministerial code can be
very serious, and they are matters that the Prime Minister needs
to police, so there are some aspects in here where if, for example,
somebody did something that was illegal, that would be very, very
serious: misleading parliament, all sorts of things like that.
Q112 Stephen Williams:
That is currently understood though, is it not, and there is a
ministeral code of the moment, that if a Minister were to mislead
parliament, then one of us would make a point of order or the
Speaker himself would bring the Minister to deal with it, and
that redress is already there. What does the Cabinet Manual
add that is not already in place?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Things like
the chapter of devolution, which of course will need to be amended
post-Welsh referendum. There are aspects there. These are quite
complex matters. Mistakes have been made in the past, and the
more we can give people a clear user's guide to these areas the
better.
Q113 Stephen Williams:
How often do you think the document, once it is finalised, will
be updated?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think I'd
like to propose to Ministers that significant revisions are quite
rare. But, for example, let's say you have a fixed-term Bill before
the Lords at the moment. Once that was changed, that seems to
me the sort of thing that you'd want to change the Cabinet
Manual to reflect. So I'd expect there to be some factual
revisions as legislation changes, which are done as and when appropriate,
but significant changes somewhat rare.
Q114 Stephen Williams:
If there are changes during parliaments, is it up to you to draw,
for instance, this Committee's attention to it, or parliament's
attention to it, or do you have to spot it on the website, the
Cabinet Office's website?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I'd be very
happy to ensure that given this Committee's particular relevance,
the constitutional issues, when we change things, we make sure
that you're made aware of that. But like I say, mostly these things
will be just purely factual. If there has been a change of legislation
and that goes through, then we would want to make the Cabinet
Manual reflect that. But we'd want to not be changing it,
like I say, every few days, because then I think it becomes just
too much of a distraction.
Q115 Stephen Williams:
I think it is fairly obvious and commonsense that, for instance,
the Welsh referendum result would require a change, and we would
all accept that, but if it was a change as a result of working
practices of the Government or the Civil Service itself, would
there be a consultation on that change or would the change be
a fait accompli of which we would be notified?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I personally
would envisage the changes that we make as we go along to be ones
that are very clear and factual, so if the legislation is changed,
if there has been a referendum that has changed things, then that
is the sort of thing you would institute. If there are broader
issues that are not as clear-cut as that, then it will be an interesting
question for future Cabinets to decide precisely how they want
to consult on such changes.
Q116 Chair: Just
to pick up on that last point, Sir Gus, you have the power, clearly,
to recommend certain things to Ministers. Could I just ask on
behalf of the Committee that you consider how those recommendations
are framed so that there is a sensible interaction between the
Executive and legislature? It is clearly not going to be in anybody's
interest for there to be some sort of stand-off or confrontation.
Certainly my personal view, if I may be allowed it, is that parliament
is not ideally suited to go through this sort of thing line by
line, and then the Executive do get very much involved in terms
of the internal workings of parliament. I know you may not believe
that, but we experience that at this end of the telescope, and
may well use its influence on votes or whatever, which I think
would be an extremely destructive step forward.
I should have started by commending you for
ensuring that document gets in the public domain and has done
so in very short order. I think history will give you many brownie
points for that, Sir Gus, and quite rightly too. But I hope you
will continue in that spirit, and attempt to work with us, to
find if we do indeed report that we would like to go in a particular
direction, that you will continue to discuss with the Committee
how we can make that work. I do not think there is anyone in this
room trying to use this as a way of beating the Government or
undermining parliament or anything else. I think we are all trying
to find a way to make sure that in what is a more—rhetorically,
certainly—open drive in Government, new politics and so
on, that there is hopefully room to agree a way forward that does
not end up with votes in the House of Commons for or against a
Government point of view.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I very
strongly agree with that, and this is why I think it's important
that certainly when we do this for the first time that we get
your views, because there was reference to the House of Lords
Committee's view, which is one particular position. I'd be very
keen to know what your position is and what the Public Administration
Select Committee's position will be before we come to revise the
draft and put a new version to Ministers.
Q117 Chair: Hopefully
you will consider in your recommendations various levels of response,
and you used the phrase "significant revisions". Where
there are significant revisions, obviously it would be more appropriate
to grade up the parliamentary response so that—I do not
know—if something very significant were to happen, perhaps
it would be reported to this Committee or reported to the floor
or be the subject of a brief annual debate in the House or some
such, whereas the amendment of a footnote, for example, probably
would not require that.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Could I just
clarify there? In a sense, there could be very significant revisions.
I mean, we've had the Welsh referendum, there will be the AV referendum,
there is the fixed-term Parliaments Bill. In a sense, what we'll
be doing then is just reflecting whatever has happened, the change
to legislation or procedures. They are constitutionally very significant
changes, all of those, but I would have thought they are ones
where the legislation has either passed or it hasn't. I think
the point Mr Williams was getting at in terms of if there's a
change where one is taking a different interpretation, or in practice
that sort of thing, and it's significant, then I think that's
the kind of thing you're thinking about. Is that right?
Chair: Certainly, yes.
Q118 Simon Hart:
Can I ask one question about the legal status of the Cabinet
Manual? If it has already been asked before I arrived here,
say so, and I will shut up. It strikes me that there might be
an unintended legal status—or indeed, an intended one—and
the reason I ask that question is there are two elements to that.
First of all—and you touched on the devolution point—at
the moment, there is an argument brewing as to who ultimately
decides on areas of competence between the Welsh Assembly and
Westminster, and the particular subject is organ donation at the
moment. Does the Cabinet Manual go, or could the Cabinet
Manual go, as far as saying who ultimately decides where the
competence lies on something that might have significant legal
and therefore cost implications on the one hand, and on the other,
there seems to me to be a sort of glaring omission with regard
to the convention that the House of Commons would be consulted
on matters of sending soldiers to war, which also has significant
legal and cost implications, and that appears to be missing. So
those two points that come under the overall legal status point.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: In terms of
the legal status, as I've said in answer to previous questions,
I do not regard this as legally binding, so in that sense, it's
guidance, and that's very clear in the foreword. The two issues
you raise there, the first on devolution, I think that's a question
of, as I say, this is a document by the Executive for the Executive,
so it could easily have in it—on devolution, it would have
the Executive's view about how these matters are made now. It
will obviously need to be amended in the light of the referendum,
which has obviously changed that balance for the 20-odd issues.
So there will be a change there, and there are some interesting
questions about the organ donation issue, which I know are a matter
of debate. I suspect if there are matters of live debate, we would
like to get them resolved before we put something in the Cabinet
Manual. I don't think it's an area where we'd want to be trying
to pontificate ahead of time on those sorts of things.
On the question of war powers, I gave some evidence
to the Chilcot Inquiry, where I said there is a sort of emerging
convention, in my view, that parliament will be consulted before
armed forces are sent in, except in exceptional circumstances,
and there could be exceptional circumstances. But that's what
I said in evidence.
Q119 Simon Hart:
Just on the competencies point though—which I accept what
you say about the specifics of organ donation—colleagues
in both the Welsh Assembly and here are very conscious as a result
of last week's referendum that there needs to be some form of
adjudication process, because there is confusion. We have already
seen it before the ink is even dry on the result of the referendum.
There is some confusion about who is responsible for what, and
some guidance as to who makes that final decision could, I think,
pre-empt quite a lot of embarrassment for whichever government
happens to be in office in either end of the M4.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I absolutely
take that point. I think in the light of the referendum, it will
be important that we get that clarity established. All I'm saying
is I don't think that I want the Cabinet Manual to be the
sort of vehicle for that. I think we need to do that quite urgently
now. If there is a lack of clarity, we need to sort that out,
and it should not wait for the next version of the Cabinet
Manual.
Q120 Sheila Gilmore:
Why I have some difficulty with this whole document is if it is
a manual primarily for the Executive rather than the Government,
why is there is a consultation process, because the consultation
process to me suggests that at the end of the day, people have
some input into altering it. It is a fairly broad consultation
process. Are you looking for corrections? In that case, why go
out to the public, as it were, because to offer something up to
consultation suggests that we or the public have some ability
to change it.
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
Yes, you do, absolutely do. We do not regard ourselves as all-seeing
or all-powerful beings here. There will be questions where there
will be disputes about facts, and we can sort those out. The public
and various academics and various constitutional experts have
given us their views, sometimes conflicting, but your Committee,
the Lords, the Public Administration Select Committee will all
give us, I hope, your views on all of this, because it's been
going a long time in New Zealand but this is the first time we're
doing it here. Other countries are thinking of following this
example, so I think it's right to try and have a quite open process
at the start, while accepting that this document ultimately will
be owned and the Executive will be responsible for it. I think,
just as with lots of White Papers via Green Papers,
we gain a lot by Government consulting, getting experts to take
their views, and then in the light of those views, amending policies
and coming up with hopefully better proposals.
Q121 Sheila Gilmore:
I see that in regard to policies, and it does not happen often
enough, as far as I can see here at all, but if this is simply
a restatement of what is, in what sense is it something dynamic
that we can all contribute to?
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
As you will have seen from the Lords' Report, there are disputes
about what is. There are different views about what is, so it's
not as straightforward as you'd like to think. What I hope will
emerge from this process is a core set of issues that quite clearly
establish as what is and accepted by the vast majority of people
as the existing rules and conventions.
Q122 Sheila
Gilmore: On that basis, if it is a policy consultation, the
way it should work is the views are taken, but nevertheless, there
is a decision-making body that decides ultimately—and it
would be parliament normally in a policy issue—as to which
of those to accept, which of those not to accept. As I used to
find when I was on the council, people used to come along to deputations
and say, "You did not consult us" and what they meant
was they did not agree with this, rather than we did not consult.
So somebody has to be the decision-maker, so who exactly do you
think will be the decision-maker in this process?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: The decision-maker
in this process will be Cabinet. When we have all of the responses
in to the consultation, we'll put forward some suggested revisions.
That will go to Home Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the
Deputy Prime Minister, and then Cabinet will either take note
of it or discuss it or decide how it wants to handle it, but at
the end, this is the Cabinet Manual and it will be their
document. So they will be the decision-maker.
Q123 Sheila Gilmore:
Just slightly different—although maybe not entirely different—having
written some of these things down, I suppose in the past, people
always talked about the flexibility of the British unwritten constitution,
because you could move it along. Is there a risk that in writing
some of these things down you end becoming much more static, so
that, for example, things can be challenged? We have heard quite
a lot about the coalition forming and that process, but there
are probably other aspects where by the act of writing it down,
and indeed going through all this process, you get to a point
where then other people will challenge in some respect what has
happened. I mean, they might even try to judicially challenge
it; I do not know how possible that would be. Is that a disadvantage
rather than an advantage?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: On the point
about judicial challenges or whatever, like I say, it's not legally
binding, but that doesn't mean the court might not make a reference
to it in Judicial Review proceedings, for example. That's possible.
But all of these things are written down somewhere already. What
we're doing is bringing them all together and making it a little
clearer and a little easier for everybody to understand existing
rules and conventions, and of course within the document, there
are some things that are binding rules. It refers to legislation,
which is absolutely clear, and there are other areas where there
are conventions and varying degrees of certainty about those conventions.
So it's a mix of things. By writing it down, I think we bring
it all together. We, I think, help to clarify any debates about
those sorts of issues and make such a discussion better informed.
I don't think we change the nature of it in the end, because all
of these documents exist. This brings together things that are
written down in other places.
Q124 Sheila Gilmore:
So you do not think that either maybe politically or the media
or whatever, that could lead to a situation where you have people
brandishing the Cabinet Manual and saying, "You cannot
do this", even a situation where Government might consider
it needs to respond to a situation?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: As was said
before, and the foreword makes clear, it's a guide. It's not a
legally binding document. If there were a written constitution
that parliament had laid down, that would be very clear and that
would provide explicit guidance, but this isn't it.
Chair: Sir Gus, we will obviously correct
the record, your slip of the tongue that the Cabinet Secretary
was not all-seeing and all-knowing.
Q125 Simon Hart: Just
to come back on your response to Sheila, you said that ultimately
the decision-maker is the Cabinet. Lots of people will find that
quite remarkable, you know, the equivalent of asking Diego Maradona
to be the referee on handball decisions, that the person that
needs to be policed is doing the policing, that it is the person,
the people who are to be guided by this guidance who are deciding
what the limits and the arbiters should be. Do you not feel that
the way to overcome that would be to have some sort of external
or outside body who was much more responsible for the day-to-day
management and overseeing of the Cabinet Manual?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think this
process, it could get you into all sorts of custodial arguments,
couldn't it, that this is the Executive's document and it's saying
how they intend to operate, and people can hold them to account
according to whether they operate in this way, just as we published—as
we did before—the questions of procedure to Ministers and
now the ministerial code. That's out there and people can say,
"But surely, X's behaviour is not in line with the ministerial
code" and they do.
Q126 Simon Hart:
So it is more of a manifesto than a rulebook?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It's not a
manifesto, no. It's a guide, it's a manual.
Q127 Simon Hart: But
how can the Government then be held to account, other than to
say, "Referee, that is a foul"? There is no referee,
there is no arbiter. How could we hold a Government to account
that had broken its own guidelines?
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
That's exactly the current situation, for example, in the ministerial
code. That is a document prepared by the Executive for the behaviour
that Ministers should operate, and if there is a violation to
the ministerial code, it is a matter for the Prime Minister to
decide. He can consult with Sir Philip Mawer, if he wishes, but
ultimately it's the Prime Minister who decides on these things.
Q128 Simon Hart: Just
for my background knowledge, can you tell me how many times there
has been a breach of the ministerial code recently?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes,
I would need notice of that question, because there are varying
kinds, there are minor or major ones, but it is a very important
document.
Q129 Tristram Hunt:
It was just in terms of obviously this is a codification of rules,
conventions, traditions and so on, but it is also inevitably a
product of its moment and of its time. Apart from the notorious
footnote 8, the Liberal Democrat attempt to change our constitutional
procedures, following consultation and all the rest of it, are
there any other examples that you are aware of that you think
overly bear the imprint of the moment, for example, the sort of
post-coalition moment for the final drafting, redrafting of the
text?
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
No, I don't think so, but obviously I don't want to come to any
final decision on that until we've had in all of the responses,
so the consultation period is formally finished, but we're waiting
for your report and for the Public Administration Select Committee
report.
Q130 Chair: Just
a quick one from me, Sir Gus. Will you put the convention on war-making
powers and the commitment of troops to armed conflict in the Cabinet
Manual?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That's a good question,
to be honest, and I think that's something that I'd be interested
to hear your views on. I've stated in front of the Chilcot Inquiry
the point that I believe—and obviously I had discussed this
with Ministers before I said it—that a convention exists
that parliament will be given the opportunity to debate the decision
to commit troops to armed conflict, and except in emergency situations,
that debate would take place before they're committed. Now, it's
quite possible that Ministers will decide to insert that in the
Cabinet Manual, but that will be an issue that no doubt
they will want to consider, particularly as we are in the year
where we hope the Chilcot Inquiry will report.
Q131 Chair: I think
given that this issue is probably arguably the most important
single political decision made in the last 20 years, and it gave
rise to a debate about the respective authorities in respect of
war-making, speaking from personal experience, having been to
the table office every day that the House sat for five years in
order to put on to the agenda that Government should consider
how this could be progressed, perhaps I have more of a nerdy interest
in this than anybody else. But on the more grand politics, this
of course led to the two largest rebellions within a governing
party in British political history at the time we went to war,
but nonetheless, to sort of play out a little bit of slack, the
decision about going to war need not itself require parliamentary
approval before going. There may be occasions when the Executive
have to react very quickly. If bombs are falling on our country,
you do not want to get a debate sometime next week. However, the
leeway is that decisions should be ratified within a given period
or due process of some description should be in place and that
the Cabinet Manual might be a place where you could find
that for future reference, rather than it being—with great
respect again—the Cabinet Secretary's view that it is an
emerging convention. One does find that in moments of great stress,
such as the country going to war, conventions disappear almost
as fast as they can emerge, so having it in writing within the
Cabinet Manual might be very helpful.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I look forward
to seeing, when we get your Report, if there is a very strong
push in that direction. I'm sure that will be important.
Chair: Very helpful, thank you.
Q132 Stephen Williams:
I have just been skim-reading the House of Lords' Report while
we have been here. Are you disappointed with their first conclusion
when it says that all your work has limited value and relevance?
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
It is kind of curious, because I'm being attacked from two sides
here. There's a lovely line that an old colleague of mine, who
is on that Committee, Charles Powell—Lord Powell, I should
say—said, "This is a bit Janet and John" and there
are plenty of people the other way who say, "This is the
Cabinet Office far exceeding its limit". So to be attacked
from both sides is probably where the Cabinet Secretary has to
be in these sorts of things and suggests to me we are probably
in about the right place.
Q133 Stephen Williams:
Other than the somewhat rude and dismissive comments of their
Lordships, are there any of their conclusions that you are minded
immediately to accept or do you need to go away and think about
all of them? For instance, they even suggest that the name is
wrong and it should be the Cabinet Office Manual rather
than the Cabinet Manual.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Indeed, indeed.
I think it's only appropriate for us to—and I have the Report
here—take a little bit of time to consider it. I have already,
in response to an earlier question, suggested that I think I disagree
with them personally on the question of the name, because I think
that tends to suggest that the ownership is somehow not with the
Executive, it's with the Cabinet Office, and what does that mean:
does that mean the Cabinet Secretary; does that mean this is owned
by the Civil Service? If that's what they're suggesting, then
I think that's wrong. I think this has to be owned by Ministers.
Q134 Stephen Williams:
When you were with us before on the formation of Government, I
think in that evidence session I asked you whether it was now
a good thing that we seem to have Cabinet Government again, partly
because of the coalition, rather than social government that one
of your predecessors described the practices of Prime Minister
Blair. Of course since we last met, the current Prime Minister
has beefed up his policy unit with 10 Downing Street. Do you think
the Cabinet Manual is strong enough on the relationships
inbetween appointed advisors of the Prime Minister—or the
Deputy Prime Minister, for that matter—and the fact that
the Cabinet should make decisions?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes, and I
would say that there's all the parts in there about the use of
Cabinet Committees and the like, and indeed, it is certainly the
case that coalition has had an impact on that, because of the
need to make sure that policies are cleared through and, if you
like, "coalitionised" is the phrase I have used, where
we have Cabinet Committees with a Chair from one party, Deputy
from another. That process and the fact of having a coalition
has strengthened the use of Cabinet Committees, without a doubt.
But could there be more in the Cabinet Manual? Well, I
think it's important that it covers the issue of use of Cabinet
Committees for policy and the like, and covers things like the
ministerial code point about the role of the Attorney General
and advice particularly on key issues like going to war.
Q135 Stephen Williams:
If I can return, Chairman, to this business of the sort of interregnum
between a general election and someone else getting in the car
and going to the Palace, it seems to me absolutely fundamentally
important, because you said earlier a future Prime Minister could
of course ignore the Cabinet Manual, even though it says
that an incumbent Prime Minister has a duty to stay in office.
Are you at all worried then, if the next general election has
a similar result in terms of being a balanced parliament, 2010
general election, that given what you just said, that the Prime
Minister could ignore what is now codified in a manual, that we
could be plunged into chaos if Prime Minister Cameron, for instance,
decides to walk out in a fit of pique the day after the election,
because it may not look as though he is going to be able to head
up a new administration?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I should stress
and put on the record that I think the former Prime Minister behaved
incredibly well—
Stephen Williams: Indeed.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: —and
I think all the political parties did. What we say here is that
there is an expectation that Prime Ministers are not expected
to resign until clearly there is someone who should be asked to
form a government. That is what's in the Cabinet Manual
at the moment. Now, as you will know from the Lords' Committee,
there are some people that take slightly different views, but
in the end, I think it's important that the Cabinet Manual
does say something on this.
Q136 Stephen Williams:
Finally, it seems as though it will not be parliament that has
the final say on approving this Cabinet Manual, but the
Cabinet will, because it is their manual essentially, given that
the Prime Minister therefore will have acquiesced in the wording
of that particular paragraph or that particular manual, therefore
we should expect him to adhere to it if the next election is inconclusive.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think it
will be owned by the Cabinet, so it'll be for them to put down
what they think.
Q137 Mr Hamilton:
Does the Cabinet Manual not change the convention, in fact?
You say that the Prime Minister will not be expected to resign
until there is a successor, or a clear successor who could be
appointed, but there is a view that the Prime Minister can do
what he or she likes and decide to resign immediately the result
of the election is known, whether or not there is a successor
that is clearly going to take over.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: There is a
view. The question is what should the expectation be about what
Prime Ministers should do? Prime Ministers will always be able
to do whatever they want in those circumstances. The convention
can say what they should do. The Cabinet Manual has an
expectation.
Q138 Mr Hamilton:
But the Cabinet Manual has absolutely no authority over
any Prime Minister to say, "Hang on, you cannot resign, because
there is no successor".
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Absolutely,
that's right.
Mr Hamilton: I just wanted to clarify
that.
Q139 Andrew Griffiths: Did
you always expect this document to be a political football?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: When the Prime
Minister asked me to do it, it was clear that it wasn't a completely
straightforward exercise. I think that's fair. In preparing it,
that's why we thought, "Let's do the one chapter" and
that one chapter, because it was, we thought, rather important
to get that out ahead of the election. That certainly, I think,
in my mind, suggested the advantages of having the Cabinet
Manual, but it did also suggest that this will be a process
that a lot of people will be interested in. We have three Select
Committees looking at it, the Institute for Government have opined
on it in various ways, so I think it is an important document,
and I'm very pleased that people are taking it seriously, even
though it is a modest guide.
Q140 Andrew Griffiths:
You will have no doubt read the evidence that we have had so far.
Last week we had the very forthright Dr Pinto-Duschinsky, who
came to see us, and he has a particular view about the Cabinet
Manual, and he very clearly said that he thought the Cabinet
Manual was a document, I think to paraphrase, "Written
to keep the Liberal Democrats in power in a hung parliament".
What is your view on that accusation?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Absolutely
not. This is completely impartial, in that sense. It's just noting
the conventions. That is it.
Q141 Andrew Griffiths:
Do you think that that accusation would have been less valid had
work been started on the Cabinet Manual or progressed on
the Cabinet Manual earlier, in an ideal world?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I would love
to have written it five years earlier. A very interesting question
about what we would have covered is would we have foreseen that
it was very important to cover these things? I think it's important,
insofar as you can, to kind of lay down the guidelines, as it
were, at times of peace, when it's not such a big issue. I remember
having a discussion with Mervyn King about the issue of, "What
would you do if there was a Monetary Policy Committee vote on
the day of an election?" which is quite a tricky one. I mean,
the good thing was having a rule beforehand, well away from the
election, which, to their credit, MPC decided on, which was they
would have a rule about moving it and that would be a rule that
everybody understood, and it would be well away from an election,
it would be well away from whether the issue was to raise them
[interest rates] or lower them so you couldn't be accused of bias.
I think trying to establish the rules in a period of calm is good,
so yes, I wish we'd done it many years earlier.
Q142 Andrew Griffiths:
Your document is following on in the footsteps of the Cabinet
Manual in New Zealand. How do you think our document compares
against theirs, and have we caught up? Is it as developed as theirs,
do you think, or is there more work to do or is ours better?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: They don't
have to do Europe, so we have a chapter on Europe there.
Andrew Griffiths: There are many in this
House that wish we did not have Europe.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That's true.
On devolution, there isn't a similar chapter in New Zealand. They
were there well ahead of us, and I've gone out of my way to say
one of the reasons I went over there to talk to them was to learn
from them. We copied with pride. But it is different and it's
written for our circumstances, so there are areas where it will
be different. We haven't slavishly followed it.
Q143 Andrew Griffiths:
Just a final question: to what extent do you think you will have
to revisit this should the referendum on AV go in favour of a
change?
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
We obviously want to reflect whatever the voting laws are, most
certainly.
Q144 Chair: As an
aside, we are coming up to 800 years since King John had his meeting
at Runnymede, and of course he is famously quoted at the end of
that as saying, "It is not our own constitution, it is just
an operating manual". But I wonder whether you feel the weight
of history, Sir Gus, and whether you feel that if we have a fixed-term
parliament that will take us to 2015, how our successors may judge
us, whether there is an opportunity to celebrate that 800th anniversary
in some significant way in respect of how we write down some of
our rights, whether they are parliamentary or individual liberties?
Sir Gus O'Donnell:
As you know, the previous Prime Minister, in the speech that you
quoted, wanted to do more work on this. I think there is currently
an issue in that the Government are thinking about in terms of
the Bill of Rights and possibly looking into that, having a Committee
that would do so. So I think 800 years on, it is a very significant
moment, and I think it would be good for people to look back and
see what the lessons of that are.
Q145 Chair: You are
probably aware—you are certainly aware, because you have
written to me about it—that the Committee is looking at
codifying, and I do not know whether you say legalising, but certainly
pulling together the powers of the Prime Minister, which currently
are rather defused, let us say, and no doubt you will be back
with us to talk about that at some point.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Indeed, and
obviously there's—I think it is—paragraph 75 to 79,
off the top of my head, of the Cabinet Manual that referred
to the power of the Prime Minister. This does get to how things
change. One of the powers we talk about there is the power of
the Prime Minister to appoint Ministers and the allocation of
functions between Ministers. That has been modified somewhat with
coalition, so the current Prime Minister has said he will exercise
those powers, but after consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister,
so there has been a change already.
Q146 Andrew Griffiths:
We had a brief reference earlier to the beefing up of the operation
in No 10 and spokesmen and SpAds. Obviously we have very clear
guidelines about how special advisors can operate, but do you
think there needs to be some reference within the Cabinet Manual
to the operation of Cabinet Members and how they instruct and
use their special advisors and spokesmen? Do you think that Cabinet
Members should be more responsible for the actions of their SpAds
and special advisors and particularly in relation to briefings,
off the record briefings, and being accountable to the Cabinet
as a collegiate group?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: There's already
a code for special advisors, and it is very important that they
do abide by that code and live by those values. The only one of
the Civil Service values they are not bound by is the impartiality,
obviously, but operating with honesty, objectivity and integrity
is absolutely crucial to this, and I think the Prime Minister
would strongly reinforce the idea of special advisors operating
in the best interests of the Government as a whole. That's very
important.
Q147 Andrew Griffiths:
But you do not think there needs to be anything in relation to
Cabinet Members briefing against other Cabinet Members or that
sort of sometimes damaging activity of Government over a period
of our history?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It's very clear
from the special advisor code that that should not happen, and
I know the Prime Minister very strongly—and the Deputy Prime
Minister—believes that that shouldn't happen.
Chair: Again, just to reinforce, if I
may, Sir Gus, the point I made earlier, that if it is possible
to move this forward by more informal interaction with this Committee,
myself or the House using us as a conduit, we are open to do that,
because we do not want it to be clunky and position-taking if
there is the possibility of making progress on some of the issues
in a slightly more sensitive way. We would be very open to discuss
those further with you. That was helpful.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Thank you,
that's very helpful.
Chair: Sir Gus, thank you. It is very
kind of you to come before us again. It is always a great pleasure
to see you. I hope to see you again in the near future. Thank
you for your time.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Thank you.
I look forward to your Report.
|
