|
We regard the creation and publication of the Cabinet Manual as both highly significant and welcome. Its creation came about in the context of constitutional questions being asked by the then Government, including consolidation of existing conventions into a single written document. The Manual raises issues of constitutional and political importance for Parliament and the relationship of the Legislature to the Executive. All the work of the Executive, including the Cabinet Manual, is subject to scrutiny by Parliament. The fact that the document is primarily directed at the Executive does not exempt it from this scrutiny.
The Cabinet Manual was published in draft for consultation in December 2010. The consultation has given rise to some debate, including criticism of aspects of the Manual, not least from the House of Lords Constitution Committee. While we share some of the concerns that have been expressed, in general terms we welcome the publication of the Manual.
In this Report, we do not attempt to undertake line-by-line scrutiny of the Manual in its entirety. We do, however, make some practical suggestions for specific improvements to the text, with a particular focus on the chapters covering government formation and Ministers and Parliament. There is no reference in the Manual to Parliament's role in decisions on committing British forces to armed combat. This needs to be put right.
The Manual was written both as a guide for Ministers and civil servants and to inform the wider public. These two goals do not sit entirely happily alongside one another.
The Manual is meant to guide, rather than to direct or to set issues in stone. In practice, however, it may be treated as having greater authority than originally intended. This is particularly true where it describes relations between the Executive and other parts of the constitutional framework. We recommend that the House should hold a regular debate on the Manual.
The Manual appears to have originated from a wider project to consider whether the United Kingdom should adopt a codified constitution. It covers constitutional issues that range beyond the functions of Ministers and civil servants. Although it is not in itself a written constitution, it may lead to further debate about the United Kingdom's constitutional settlement, including the desirability of a written constitution.
The uncodified British constitution contains areas of uncertainty. It is not always possible to write down existing conventions in definite terms without taking sides. Where uncertainty or disagreement exists, the Cabinet Manual needs to signal this clearly. The existing draft does not always do so.
Dissatisfaction with parts of the original draft should not significantly delay production of an approved version of the Cabinet Manual. The next version need not be perfect—it will be subject to further review—but it should be considerably improved as a result of the consultation that has been undertaken, and as a result of parliamentary scrutiny.
We welcome the motivation we detect behind the Cabinet Manual project, which is a desire to be more transparent about how Government works, and we look forward to future involvement in its development.
| 
