Supplementary written evidence submitted
by Professor Robert Hazell, The Constitution Unit,
University College London
When giving evidence on 13 January 2011, I failed
to do justice to two points.
PARLIAMENT'S
ROLE IN
GOVERNMENT FORMATION
There seemed to be a wish that the House of Commons
had held its first sitting very soon after the 6 May election
in order to influence the negotiations between the political parties.
This would simply not be realistic.
I know of no parliament which plays such a role:
¾ It takes
several days for members to be sworn in, and the Speaker to be
elected.
¾ Negotiations
cannot be conducted on the floor of the House.
¾ Even
in countries (eg Scotland) which have an investiture vote, where
the parliament formally elects or nominates the first minister,
that vote takes place after the conclusion of negotiations between
the parties.
The impracticality of the proposal can be judged
by asking: if the House of Commons had sat on 10 or 11 May, what
would it have done? It could only have adjourned to enable the
political parties to continue their negotiations, and to await
the outcome. But if the concern lying behind the Committee's questions
was that members felt excluded from the negotiations, the remedy
lies not in Parliament, but in the internal democracy of their
own political parties. As the recent books by Rob Wilson and David
Laws both show, Liberal Democrat MPs were extensively consulted
during the negotiations; Conservative MPs to some extent; Labour
MPs hardly at all.
OWNERSHIP OF
THE CABINET
MANUAL
I was repeatedly pressed on whether Parliament should
claim a right to approve the contents of the Manual. Parliament
has every right to scrutinise the Manual, and I have no doubt
that Cabinet Office will take any comments very seriously. But
that is not the same as a right of approval, or veto. Most of
the Manual consists of discrete pieces of executive guidance which
are now being brought together, but which have long existed without
parliamentary approval. These include:
The Ministerial Code
A Guide to Cabinet and Cabinet Committee Business.
Civil Service Code.
Directory of Civil Service Guidance, vols 1-2.
Executive Agencies: A Guide for Departments.
Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments.
The Judge Over Your Shoulder.
General Election Guidance 2005.
Guide to Parliamentary Business.
Guide to Making Legislation.
Freedom of Information Guidelines.
Devolution Guidance.
The Civil Service Code is now statutory and must
be laid before Parliament, since the civil service was put on
a statutory footing in the Constitutional Reform and Governance
Act 2010. But it is not subject to parliamentary approval in the
form of positive or negative resolution. It is only subject to
minimum requirements that civil servants must be able to serve
administrations of any political complexion, and must do so in
accordance with the civil service values of integrity and honesty,
objectivity and impartiality.
Another argument advanced for parliamentary approval
of the Cabinet Manual was that it refers to relations between
the government and Parliament. But the fact that the Manual refers
to the Executive's relations with other bodies does not imply
that it requires the consent of those other bodies, whether Parliament,
the judiciary or anyone else. On this logic, given what is said
in chapter 9 on Europe and international institutions, the Manual
should require the consent of the EU, NATO, WTO etc etc.
This is a question which it would be worth exploring
further in the evidence session with Professor Margaret Wilson,
a distinguished parliamentarian who was herself Speaker of the
New Zealand House of Representatives.
16 January 2011
| 
