Conclusions and recommendations
Purpose, status and consequences
1. Where
there is the potential for disagreement or uncertainty, as there
so often is on the meaning of unwritten constitutional conventions,
it is important that the Cabinet Manual should signal the existence
of this uncertainty. (Paragraph 22)
2. Vague language—'usually
this' and 'normally that'—probably indicates a shorthand
way of avoiding long and detailed explanations of complex situations,
but it risks limiting the Manual's usefulness as a practical tool,
unless the Manual also makes clear where the more detailed explanations
are available. (Paragraph 25)
3. An index should
be added to the Cabinet Manual so that it can be more easily used
as a point of reference. Sources of related information, both
published and unpublished, should be listed at the beginning of
each chapter to make clear to readers the range of other guidance
that exists. (Paragraph 28)
4. We agree with the
House of Lords Constitution Committee that the Manual should "be
fully referenced throughout". (Paragraph 30)
5. We appreciate that
the 'precedent book' may contain within it information that is
personally sensitive, but believe there is a strong case for the
publication, at the earliest practical time, of a redacted version
of the 'precedent book', providing those outside the Executive
with a more informed opportunity to judge whether constitutional
conventions are accurately reflected in the draft. It would also
make a more general contribution to public understanding of the
British constitution as a whole. (Paragraph 32)
6. It seems unlikely
to us that the Cabinet Manual will feature extensively in court
proceedings. However, in a constitution based on the rule of law
judicial interpretation is always possible. This is simply a further
reason for the Executive and Legislature to do all they can to
ensure that the Manual is accurate, does not mislead and is subject
to due process. (Paragraph 34)
7. The foreword to
the draft suggests that the Cabinet Manual is a document of limited
ambition, which is not intended to "set issues in stone"
or to "resolve or move forward" matters of public debate.
Despite these intentions, there is scope for the constitutional
impact of the Cabinet Manual to be greater than this. This becomes
particularly true where the Cabinet Manual's content extends beyond
matters that are purely for the Executive. (Paragraph 36)
8. Whether or not
the Cabinet Manual should be open to amendment and decision by
Parliament depends in our view on what the Cabinet Manual is or
might become. If it is simply a document by the Executive, about
the Executive and for the Executive, then for Parliament to decide
on its content would give it a status it should not have. (Paragraph
40)
9. The Manual, however,
seems in part to be intended as—or might become, whatever
the intention—the basis for a shared understanding beyond
the Executive of important parts of the United Kingdom's previously
uncodified constitution. Parliamentary intervention would be entirely
appropriate in such circumstances. An official document, approved
by the Cabinet, will have a status unlike that of existing academic
texts on the same subject. We intend to monitor closely how the
Cabinet Manual develops, and how it is used both within and beyond
Government during the life of this Parliament. (Paragraph 41)
10. Whatever the status
of the Cabinet Manual as a document, it covers ground which is
significant enough to merit regular debate in the House. We therefore
propose that, soon after the Cabinet Manual is finalised, the
House should have the opportunity to debate it as a whole and
should seek the Government's assurance that such a debate should
become an annual fixture in the parliamentary calendar. Alternatively,
the debate could occur twice during the course of a five-year
Parliament - the first debate within 30 months of the start of
a fixed term five-year Parliament, and the second debate within
30 months of the election concluding the Parliament. Before each
one, the Government should publish a list of changes made to the
Manual since the previous debate. The Government should publish
a list of changes made to the Manual during the preceding year
to inform this debate. As the Manual is largely about the conduct
of the Executive, we would expect this debate to take place in
Government time. (Paragraph 42)
Relationship to a written constitution
11. 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. (Paragraph 54)
Content: Analysis of two chapters
12. The
chapter of the Cabinet Manual on Ministers and Parliament should
focus on the role and responsibilities of central Government.
Conventions which rely on the Government to take the initiative
need to be included: a salient example—and a surprising
omission from the draft—is the convention, acknowledged
by the Government, that Parliament should have the opportunity
to debate decisions to commit troops to armed conflict, and that
the debate should take place before the troops are committed,
except in emergency situations. This convention, as the Executive
understands it, should be included in the revised Manual. We also
intend to inquire separately into whether the Government's understanding
of the existing convention is correct and complete—and whether
it goes far enough to ensure appropriate parliamentary involvement
in any future decisions to go to war. (Paragraph 61)
13. Descriptions of
Parliament's expectations of Government, where it is appropriate
to include them, need to be based on evidence, such as resolutions
of either House, and the Manual should be amended to reflect this
evidence. (Paragraph 63)
14. We do not agree
with the view that any part of the Cabinet Manual represents an
attempt to bias the political process. The draft may, however,
be misleading in some places, probably as a result of an understandable
desire for a degree of clarity that does not exist. (Paragraph
68)
15. The evidence indicates
that there is a continuing dispute over the extent to which a
Prime Minister has a duty to remain in office when it is unclear
who else might be best placed to lead an alternative government.
The Cabinet Manual needs to give clarity to the extent of this
uncertainty, rather than to attempt to resolve the argument.
(Paragraph 74)
16. There appears
to be widespread agreement that the footnote to paragraph 49 represents
a political negotiating position adopted in 2010 rather than a
statement of an existing constitutional convention or practice.
It should be deleted from the Manual. (Paragraph 79)
Process and Consultation
17. There
needs to be a clear and published process, agreed with us, for
updating the Cabinet Manual once it has been finalised. This process
should be as open as possible, to allow for the consideration
of comments and concerns about proposed changes before they are
included. (Paragraph 90)
Conclusion
18. Our
inquiry has revealed a fair measure of doubt and disagreement
about the purpose and content of the draft Cabinet Manual. The
next version of the Manual should be considerably improved as
a result of the consultation that has been undertaken, and as
a result of parliamentary scrutiny. It need not be perfect, however,
provided that there are future opportunities to refine it, as
it has been refined in New Zealand over the years. (Paragraph
92)
19. We welcome the
Cabinet Manual and the transparency it brings to the workings
of government, and we look forward to future involvement in its
development. (Paragraph 93)
| 
