4 The first meeting of a new Parliament
51. Prior to the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments
Act 2011, the dissolution of Parliament before a general election
and its summoning after the election had been by royal proclamation,
on advice from the Prime Minister. The Fixed-term Parliaments
Act 2011 removed from the Prime Minister control of the date of
the dissolution at the end of a fixed-term Parliament. Control
of the date for the return of Parliament continues to reside in
the incumbent Prime Minister's hands. Formally, the date is set
by Royal Proclamation following dissolution ahead of the general
election. Edward Young, Deputy Private Secretary to the Queen,
confirmed to us that this is done on the advice of the incumbent
Prime Minister.[40] The
Cabinet Manual notes that recent practice had been for Parliament
to return on the first Wednesday following the election but there
has been a significant variation throughout the post-war period,
from as little as two days in 1955 to as long as 19 in 1992.[41]
Following a recommendation by the Modernisation Committee, a delay
of 12 days between the election and the summoning of the new Parliament
was adopted in 2010.
52. There is no statutory basis for the 12 day period
between the general election and the summoning of the new Parliament.
In fact, the Prime Minister is under no obligation to summon Parliament
by a specific date: the only restrictions on the decision are
imposed by political pressure and parliamentary opinion.[42]
The 12 day period was introduced to allow new MPs to deal with
practical matters such as hiring staff and setting up offices,
to receive some induction training and to generally "acclimatise"
to their new role. It was felt that there was little opportunity
for this once the formal business of Parliament had resumed.
53. We think it is wrong in principle that the
decision on the date of Parliament's return should be in the hands
of the Prime Minister. Control over the date of general elections
was put on a statutory basis to prevent the Prime Minister from
choosing the most favourable time. We recommend that the date
of Parliament's first sitting following a General Election should
similarly be put on a statutory basis.
54. It is possible that the Prime Minister may choose
a lengthy period before the new Parliament first meets. We
recommend that, in the event that no single party has a majority
in the House of Commons to be elected on 7 May 2015, Parliament
should return as soon as possible. Transparency is paramount,
and a newly elected Parliament should be as informed and involved
as possible in any negotiations surrounding the formation of the
new government. It is important that the House of Commons should
be able to publicly debate important issues surrounding the formation
of government at the earliest opportunity.
55. We recommend that the Prime Minister sets
the date for Parliament's return following the General Election
for Monday 11 May 2015. In the event that there is a decisive
result and a single party has a majority, Parliament's return
could be postponed.
56. The introduction of the 12 day period before
Parliament's return in 2010 was for reasons relating to the induction
of new members but was done without regard to issues of government
formation. We believe that induction could proceed in parallel
with sittings of the House. Indeed, debating the formation of
the new government would prove a valuable part of any induction
for a new Member.
57. Once summoned, there are some practical issues
that place some constraints on the speed with which the House
of Commons can resume its business.[43]
Under the current timetable, on the day Parliament is summoned
to meet, the Father of the House leads members to the House of
Lords to hear the cause of summons from a Royal Commission. The
House of Commons then chooses its Speaker. If the previous Speaker
has been returned as a Member at the General Election and is elected,
the following day the Speaker-elect leads Members back to the
Lords to be formally confirmed in the post. The process would
take a day longer if the election were contested.
58. Members must then be sworn in. Currently, there
is a statutory requirement that each member must be sworn in individually
at the Table of the House. This would normally take place over
two or three days. We were told by the Clerk of the House of Commons
that under current practice up to 90 members could be sworn in
every half hour, but that it could be done at twice the speed
if there were general agreement.[44]
It seems clear that, if there is a general consensus, these practical
and legal issues could be dealt with more quickly, allowing the
House to proceed to substantive business significantly more quickly.
Appointing the government
59. Following the election of the Speaker and swearing
in of Members, the first significant piece of business for the
House of Commons is the debate on the Queen's Speech setting out
the government's programme. The vote on the Address in response
to the Queen's Speech is currently the first opportunity the new
government has to demonstrate that it has the confidence of the
House and can indeed govern. Consequently, it is also one signal
of the end of a caretaker period of government.
60. The means by which the date of the Queen's Speech
is decided upon is fairly opaque: Sir Jeremy Heywood told us that
there was "no great constraint constitutionally" on
when the date of the speech was announced, but that it would be
announced "in good time for [it] to happen".[45]
There is no specified date by which this must be done, and there
can be a substantial gap between the Queen's appointment of a
new Prime Minister and the opportunity for the House to demonstrate
its confidence: the Queen's Speech has sometimes been held three
weeks or more after the general election and a week or more after
Parliament has returned.[46]
Consequently, the Queen's appointment of the new Prime Minister
is made only in the expectation that they will be able
to command the House's confidence.[47]
Where the election has delivered a single party a clear majority,
then this expectation might be confident. But where coalition
negotiations are ongoing, a minority government is in prospect,
or there are a variety of alternative governments conceivable,
it may be far less so. The vagueness of the rules governing the
caretaker period means that it is uncertain whether the caretaker
period continues until this vote has taken place.
61. For this reason, we considered the Institute
for Government's proposal that some form of parliamentary investiture
or approval might be introduced, to take place rather earlier
than the votes on the Queen's Speech.[48]
The Institute for Government note that such practice is common
in many other jurisdictions. In both Scotland and Wales, for example,
it is a legal requirement for there to be a vote formally nominating
the incoming First Minister (in the form of a recommendation to
the Queen) following an election. The advantages are clear. An
investiture vote of some form would give a clear signal that the
person appointed as Prime Minister by the Queen would indeed have
the confidence of the House and would be able to govern. Without
that, the new appointment may be made on the balance of probability.
Such a vote would also give a clear and decisive indication that
a caretaker period has ended and a new government has begun.
62. A matter of days away from dissolution, it is
clearly too late for a procedure for an investiture vote to properly
be introduced in time for Parliament's return after the election,
though if there were a clear requirement in the national interest
for an early demonstration of the House's confidence in a new
administration then we expect that it would be possible for agreement
to be reached on the procedural change required. We recommend
that, in the next Parliament, the necessary steps are taken to
introduce investiture votes for incoming governments in the future.
An expedited process
63. At our request, the Clerk of the House of Commons
outlined an expedited process that would allow the House to resume
normal business as soon as possible after the election. Such a
process could also allow for some form of affirmatory vote on
the new prime minister. The Clerk's note, which includes more
detail, is included in Appendix 1 of this report. The Clerk of
Parliaments has confirmed to us that the House of Lords could
accommodate an expedited process of this sort.[49]
64. In this expedited process, the House of Commons
could be debating as early as the afternoon of the Monday following
the election, assuming that the election results had been declared
and the writs of election duly returned. The House could return
on Monday morning, and, rather than requiring the first visit
of the House to the Lords seen in current practice, a senior Privy
Counsellor could direct the house to elect a Speaker.[50]
If the returning Speaker were re-elected, royal approval of the
appointment could be conveyed by the same Privy Counsellor rather
than requiring a second visit to the Lords.
65. With the Speaker confirmed, Members must then
be sworn in. It is a legal requirement of the Parliamentary Oaths
Act 1866 that Members must be sworn in at the table of the House.
This has been taken to preclude a mass swearing of the oath. But
we were told that swearing-in could be conducted with two separate
'streams', allowing the whole House to be sworn in a couple of
hours. The process for individual swearing of the oath in the
Chamber could be expedited, and other reforms considered. The
legislation governing this should be revisited with a view to
considering some form of collective swearing of the oath or individual
swearing outside the chamber. Pending that change, we recommend
that the swearing-in process should be carried out using two streams.
66. With the Speaker in place and Members sworn in,
some form of formal commission from the Queen would be required
for Parliament to resume business. This has traditionally taken
the form of a motion to debate the Address in response to the
Queen's Speech. However, with a successor government still to
be decided, the commission could be delivered by a senior Privy
Counsellor. This would allow the House to reassemble by early
afternoon to debate a motion to be moved by a Minister in the
caretaker Government. This could continue until the composition
of the new government were clear. The Queen's Speech would then
proceed, with the subsequent vote as a de facto affirmation
vote.
67. We recommend that, in the event of an indecisive
election, Parliament should return on Monday 11 May and, using
an expedited process, should enter on business as soon as is practicable
that day. The necessary measures to enable this should be put
in place ahead of the General Election, including by a further
proclamation if necessary.
40 Appendix 4 Back
41
Constitutional implications of Coalition government, House of
Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fifth Report of 2013-14,
HL 139, para 38 Back
42
Q52 [Paul Evans, David Natzler] Back
43
Qq35-36 [David Natzler] Back
44
Qq47-49 [David Natzler] Back
45
Q41 [Paul Evans, David Natzler] and Qq 104-05 [Sir Jeremy Heywood] Back
46
Constitutional implications of Coalition government, House of
Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fifth Report of 2013-14,
HL 139, para 38 Back
47
Q8 [Dr Catherine Haddon] Back
48
Institute for Government (GFE 03), para 15 Back
49
Appendix 2 Back
50
This was a recommendation of the Procedure Committee in 1996 but
was never implemented. See Procedure Committee, First Report of
Session 1995-96, Proceedings at the Start of a Parliament,
HC 386, para 3
Back
| 
