Constitutional Implications of the Cabinet Manual

The Cabinet Manual – Draft

Consultation response from Iain McLean FBA, Professor of Politics, Oxford University

I am a political scientist specialising in UK public policy. I am the author of What’s Wrong with the British Constitution? (Oxford 2010). I attended the Ministry of Justice meeting at Wilton Park in February 2010 which discussed UK constitutional reform, including the then-available draft of part of the Cabinet Manual. I have the following comments, all mainly on the opening section of the Manual.

1. The use of Sovereign as a noun to describe the monarch, and sovereign as an attribute of Parliament, is confusing when they appear close together, strikingly so in paragraphs 1-3. Also, to those who believe in the sovereignty of Parliament, Sovereign is surely incorrect for the monarch. The sovereignty lies, according to A.V. Dicey and his followers, with the Queen-in-Parliament. I suggest replacing Sovereign in the first sense by Monarch, throughout the document.

2. The list of constitutional statute (para. 5), though not intended to be exhaustive, might usefully include the Representation of the People and Parliamentary Constituencies Acts.

3. Oaths of allegiance (first mention at para. 20). I suggest inserting a footnote to cover the situation of those who refuse to take oaths (e.g., Quakers). I don’t know what the situation actually is in the UK, but cf US Constitution at II.1 para. 8 and VI para. 3, both of which speak of an "Oath or Affirmation".

4. Accession and coronation (para. 24). It would be both more correct and more respectful to the Scots to move the discussion of the Accession oath upholding the Presbyterian government of the Church of Scotland (currently in para. 37) to para. 24. This then places the oaths (or I suppose declarations) in support of the two established churches on the same footing. See further R.M. Morris ed., Church and State in 21st Century Britain (Palgrave 2009), pp. 1, 77-8.