Appendix 2: Correspondence between the
Chair and the Clerk of the Parliaments
Letter from the Chair to David Beamish, Clerk
of the Parliaments, 10 March 2015
As you may know, the Political and Constitutional
Reform Committee has been holding an inquiry into the formation
of governments after a general election. The Committee has been
considering the possibility of the House of Commons meeting shortly
after the General Election to debate and confirm any proposed
arrangements for the formation of a new administration after the
election. At its meeting yesterday the Committee discussed with
the Acting Clerk of the House possible arrangements for such a
meeting of the House of Commons. A change to the present arrangements
for the first meeting of a Parliament clearly has implications
for the House of Lords. It would be helpful to us in considering
any recommendations we may make to the House if you could indicate
the arrangements which would in your view be necessary in order
for Parliament to meet on Monday 11 May. It would be helpful to
receive any response by Wednesday 18 March for circulation to
the Committee. I am writing in similar terms to the Acting Clerk
of the House, the Private Secretary to HM The Queen and the Cabinet
Secretary.
Letter from David Beamish, Clerk of the Parliaments,
to the Chair, 19 March 2015
Thank you for your letter of 10 March asking me about
the implications for the House of Lords of a meeting of a new
Parliament on the Monday after polling day.
I have discussed with David Natzler the points which
you raised with him following his oral evidence to your committee,
and all I really need to say is that there is nothing in relation
to the House of Lords which would inhibit the sort of changes
your committee is considering. Oath-taking in the House of Lords
at the start of a new Parliament is in practice fitted round the
two Royal Commissions (one at the beginning, one for the approval
of the Commons' Speaker), and the arrangements could be adjusted
as necessary if the use of Royal Commissions were to be altered
or diminished. Indeed, the usual arrangement whereby the Speaker
is approved at the beginning of the second day would in any case
have to be departed from in the event of a new Speaker being chosen,
because the proceedings in the Commons would not have been completed.
In what I say above I have assumed that both Houses
would first meet on the same day, and that the Lords would begin
the oath-taking on that day. Any proposal to summon the two Houses
for different days would, I think, introduce unnecessary constitutional
difficulties.
| 
