|
The Committee has followed up on its initial inquiry into the constitutional implications of the Cabinet Manual, in which it considered that status of the Manual, then in draft form only, and its implications for the UK's uncodified constitution. In this follow-up inquiry we have examined how the first edition of the Manual, issued in October 2011, is being used in practice, and what additions and changes might be needed when it is next revised.
We report good progress on a number of issues identified in our earlier report on the draft Manual. The published draft of the Manual did not acknowledge sufficiently areas where there was disagreement over certain conventions, but in the first edition such disagreements and areas of uncertainty appear to be acknowledged more clearly. We have recommended that, since the manual is said to be in the collective ownership of the Government, responsibility for it ought to be assigned to a specific Ministerial portfolio. Should the Manual develop to be more than a guide to the operation of the Executive, and begin to be treated as part of the UK's constitutional arrangements, we recommend that it should be treated as a document in the joint ownership of the cabinet and the relevant Parliamentary committees.
We find no compelling case for statutory recognition of the Manual: any such recognition might be an unsatisfactory halfway house to full constitutional codification. The Government should be alert to any attempt by the courts to interpret the Manual, and should intervene in such cases to set out its view of the Manual's constitutional position.
We have welcomed the release of the 1954 and 1978 Precedent Books and the work being undertaken to place the remaining two books in the public domain. However, the arrangements for recording the corporate memory of Government and the Cabinet Office are now unclear, and we have asked the Government to set out the process whereby precedents which inform its understanding of how the constitution operates are captured and retained.
On balance we do not believe that two versions of the Manual-one for Government and one for use by the public-should be produced, as this would detract from the overall authority of the document. But the Manual must be made accessible to all, as the document which pulls together in one place 'the rules of the game', and the lack of evidence of public engagement with the Manual and its contents to date is disappointing. In the run up to the 2015 election the public is entitled to clear, objective and unambiguous information about the process whereby administrations are formed. We have recommended that the Cabinet Office plan for an enhanced programme of public engagement with the contents of the Manual after the 2015 election. Before its next revision, we also recommend that the Government commission an internal assessment of how useful the Manual is to Ministers.
Revision of the Manual is important: a document which is not regularly updated to reflect relevant developments will lack authority. We believe the Manual should be revised at least every Parliament, and especially on the arrival of a new administration. The Cabinet Office should publish, and keep updated, a list of matters which need to be amended when the Manual is next revised, and should mark up the online version of the Manual at places where revisions are expected. Where revisions touch on Parliament and its relationship with the Executive, we believe that the relevant parliamentary committees should be consulted on proposals for revision.
We make three specific suggestions for revision of the Manual:
· It is vital that there should be a clear and shared understanding of the conventions governing the position of an incumbent Prime Minister who may not be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons after a general election: the principle that there must always be a government, and the Sovereign must always have a principal constitutional adviser in the form of a Prime Minister, is unambiguous and ought to be made clear;
· In the new era of fixed-term Parliaments, it is in the interests of good government for pre-election contacts between the opposition parties and the Civil Service to be authorised to begin 12 months out from a general election as a matter of course, and
· Any revision to the Manual must reflect the present scope of uncertainty over the use of the convention regarding consultation of the House of Commons before UK armed forces are committed to military action overseas.
| 
