3 Relationship to a written constitution
45. One thing that is clear is that the Manual is
not itself a written constitution: no one has claimed it is, none
of our witnesses has suggested that it is, and many have been
explicit that it is not.[57]
There are questions to be asked, however, about whether it is
an increment which brings the United Kingdom any closer to having
such a constitution.
Context
46. The view of the Prime Minister of the day could
not be clearer. Mr Brown announced the project to create the
Cabinet Manual in a speech containing the following section:
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. I can announce
today 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.[58]
47. Immediately after this Mr Brown announced the
creation of a working group to indentify the principles that would
be included in a written constitution.[59]
While in this speech Mr Brown did not explicitly say that the
"single written document" was the Cabinet Manual, it
seems clear that it was, and when the Cabinet Secretary told the
Justice Committee later that month that he had been asked to draft
the Cabinet Manual, he used identical language to that used by
Mr Brown.[60]
48. It is apparent that the Cabinet Manual project
came about in the context of wider constitutional questions being
asked by the Brown Government, including whether the United Kingdom
should move towards a written constitution. The Centre for Political
and Constitutional Studies note that "when Gordon Brown first
announced that the Manual was in production, he portrayed it as
part of a process that could lead to a fully codified constitution.
This idea has seemingly been dropped and is not mentioned in the
draft".[61]
49. The current Government has stated explicitly
that it has no plans for a written constitution.[62]
The Manual itself has survived the government transition nonetheless.
Content
50. Dr Wilks-Heeg suggests that the draft "can
be regarded as a sort of substitute for what would typically be
found in a written constitution in most democracies".[63]
Any document that claims to be "a single source of information
on how the Government works" is likely to have overlap with
the content of a written constitution.[64]
However, there are also differences between the Cabinet Manual
and what would be included in a written constitution. For example,
it contains no Bill of rights or statement of basic constitutional
principles.[65]
The draft also has administrative content that would certainly
not be seen in a constitution, for instance that "Parliament
usually meets in the Cabinet Room in 10 Downing Street every Tuesday
morning while Parliament is sitting,"[66]
or that "It is the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretariat
to write and circulate the minutes [of Cabinet] to members of
Cabinet... This should be done within 24 hours of the meeting".[67]
Consequences
51. While a relationship therefore exists between
the Cabinet Manual and a written constitution, the Cabinet Manual
is not a codified constitution, nor is it close to being one.
Could, however, the publication of the Cabinet Manual influence
the prospects for a codified constitution in the United Kingdom?
52. The Cabinet Manual would indeed be likely to
be a working document for any project to produce a codified constitution.
In evidence to us in November 2010, the Cabinet Secretary said
that
it is certainly true that if one were working towards
such an event, you would want to start off by bringing together
existing laws and conventions. I think in that sense, the Cabinet
Manual will be useful very much in its own right, but it will
also be useful and I think those who are in favour of a written
constitution would start with it. They may well not end with it,
but they would certainly start with it.[68]
53. It has also been put to us that the Manual "may
draw attention to features of the UK settlement which some find
objectionable and ... encourage some to demand that the Manual
is succeeded by a fully codified UK settlement".[69]
54. The Cabinet Manual is not a written constitution.
It has, however, considerable overlap in content with what might
be expected of a constitution. The Cabinet Secretary has suggested
to us that it would be likely to be a starting point for any attempt
to produce such a constitution. By bringing together and publishing
the Government's interpretation of existing constitutional rules
and conventions, the Government has already begun to spark debate
about both the nature of these rules and conventions, and if and
how they should be written down. This is a debate in which Parliament
needs to play a full part.
57 For example Ev w7 [Centre for Political and Constitutional
Studies], Ev w13 [Institute for Government], Ev w1 [Professor
Brazier] Back
58
"Towards a new politics", speech to the Institute for
Public Policy research, 2 February 2010, available at http://www.ippr.org/uploadedFiles/events/gordon_brown_ippr_feb_10.pdf
Back
59
As above Back
60
Justice Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2009-10, Constitutional
Processes following a General Election, HC 396 Back
61
Ev w7, para12 Back
62
HC Deb, 17 June 2010, Column 516W Back
63
Ev54, para 7 Back
64
Draft Cabinet Manual, Foreword Back
65
Ev w2 [Professor Brazier] Back
66
Draft Cabinet Manual, para 140 Back
67
Draft Cabinet Manual, para 166 Back
68
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Fourth Report of
Session 2010-11, Constitutional Processes following a General
Election, HC 528, Q268 Back
69
Ev w7, para 22 [Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies] Back
| 
