Before a Bill is introduced, the government will normally have consulted widely on its proposals by means of ‘Green’ and ‘White’ Papers. It is important to indicate that Green Papers outline proposals for reform and are only presented in general terms, (but may contain alternative proposals that may include the opinions of different interest groups), whereas White Papers are drawn up after the response to the ‘green paper’ has been received and considered by the government, and include detailed proposals for legislation. There are three types of Bill:
-
Public Bills – these are prepared by the Cabinet and change the general law of the country. They are the most common form of Bill and are often preceded by a Green Paper, which is a consultation document putting forward tentative proposals, which interested parties may consult and give their views on, such as the ‘Crime and Disorder Act 1998’.
-
Private Member’s Bills – these are prepared by an individual backbench MP. MPs wanting to put forward a Bill have to enter a ballot to win the right to do so, and then persuade the Government to allow enough parliamentary time for the Bill to pass through the processes before becoming law. Consequently very few Bills become Acts. Some, however, have made important contributions to legislation such as the Abortion Act 1967 which stemmed from a Private Member’s Bill put forward by David Steele (then leader of the Liberal party).
-
Private Bills – These are usually proposed by a local authority, public corporation or large public company, and usually only affect that sponsor. An example might be a local authority seeking the right to build a bridge or road.
The following describes the individual stages a Bill goes through before becoming an Act of Parliament:
-
First Reading’– the title of the prepared Bill is read to the House of Commons and acts as a notification of the proposed measure.
-
Second Reading – the proposals are debated fully, and may be amended. Members vote on whether the legislation should proceed. In practice the whip system (detailed later) can be applied at this stage.
-
Committee Stage – the Bill is then referred to a committee of the House of Commons for detailed examination, bearing in mind the points made during the debate. At this point further amendments to the Bill may be made.
-
Report Stage – the committee then reports back to the House, and any proposed amendments are debated and voted upon.
-
Third Reading – The Bill is re-presented to the House. There may be a short debate, and a vote on whether to accept or reject the legislation as it stands.
-
House of Lords – The Bill then goes to the House of Lords, where it goes through a similar process of three readings. If the House of Lords alters anything, then the Bill returns to the House of Commons for further consideration. The Commons then respond with agreement, reasons for disagreement, or proposals for alternative changes.
-
Royal Assent – In the vast majority of cases, agreement between the House of Lords and the House of Commons is reached, and the Bill is then presented for Royal Assent.
It is important to understand the vital relationship held between the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. This is because at the present time, the Commons is undoubtedly the most powerful as it is an elected body and an assembly which derives its authority and power from the electorate. Before the ‘Parliament Act of 1911-1949’, legislation could not be passed without the agreement of both houses, which meant that the unelected House of Lords could block legislation put forward by the elected House of Commons. However, these acts lay down special procedures by which proposed legislation can be submitted for Royal Assent without the approval of the House of Lords after specified periods of time. Nevertheless, these procedures are almost never used, as the House of Lords usually drops objections that are resisted by the Commons.
It is important to explain that public opinion can have an extensive influence on Parliament, because although the vast majority of authority and power within the English legal system lies with the House of Lords, Commons and the reigning monarch, the public also has the ability to influence what laws are passed. This is because European Community Law takes precedent over English law, and enables the public to have a decisive contribution. This may involve the use of protest, such as the Coal Miners strike in 1984, where unlimited numbers of official union members picketed mines which led to threatened and implied violence against anyone willing to ignore the ‘picket line’. These protests were also carried out against other businesses not directly involved or affiliated to the coal industry to gain support for their wage and employment demands. In addition, laws were passed under the Thatcher government to outlaw excessive and sympathetic picketing against businesses not directly involved with the dispute.
Other public methods in order to bring about a change in law also include: lobbying (trying to gain support by means of verbal persuasion), raising a petition, organising a public strike and boycotting (withdraw of support) such as in the case involving Esso, in which it was claimed that the products from the company were intensively harming the environment.
In Britain, Parliament is sovereign, which traditionally meant that the law it makes takes precedent over law originating from any other source. However, membership of the European Union (EU) has compromised this principle. Notwithstanding EU law, Parliament can make or cancel any law it chooses, and the courts must enforce it. Furthermore, at present, no discussion of the sovereignty of Parliament can take place without considering the implication of European Community law. This law has been incorporated directly into English law by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972 and as long as the United Kingdom remains a member of the Community, European law will continue to have precedent over English law in Community matters. Indeed, in the European Court of Justice case Van Gend en Loos (which was decided before the UK passed the European Communities Act 1972), the European Court declared that: “the Community constitutes a new legal order in international law, for whose benefit the States have limited their sovereign rights..”.
The effect of the new legal order on English law was demonstrated conclusively when, in the case of Factortame II, an English court, for the first time, suspended the operation of a properly passed Act of the United Kingdom Parliament – the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.
When making an Act of Parliament, the Second Reading and the Committee Stage make a decisive impact on Parliament, because it is during the ‘Second Reading’ that the proposals are debated fully and members vote on whether the legislation should proceed. As mentioned on the previous page, the ‘whip system’ (party officials whose job is to make sure MPs vote with their own party), also plays an important role because it means that a government with a reasonable majority can almost always get its legislation through at this and subsequent stages. During the process of the ‘Committee Stage’ the Bill is referred to the House of Commons and further amendments may be made. An additional reason why this is an important stage is because it allows the government to exercise their authority to pass a Bill, without providing Parliament with many options to appeal against it.
As described previously, it is important to emphasise that the House of Lords can no longer prevent an Act due to the ‘Parliament Acts of 1911-1949’. However, although the House of Lords has two separate functions (as a part of Parliament and a Court of law), it is the job of the House of Lords to revise Commons Bills (although they occasionally introduce Bills of their own). Many of their amendments are helpful as they are likely to identify problems, which saves amending the Bill at a later stage. As I referred to earlier, up until 1911 the House of Lords could prevent Government Bills being passed, however in 1909 when they rejected the Finance Bill, this led to the passing of the Parliament Act 1911. This together with the Parliament Act 1949 consequently means that the House of Commons can send a Bill for the Royal Assent without the approval of the Lords.
In the vast majority of cases, agreement between the Lords and Commons is reached, and the Bill is then presented for Royal Assent. Although technically, the Queen must give her consent to all legislation before it can become law, in practice that consent is never refused. The Bill is then an Act of Parliament, and becomes law, though most do not take effect from the moment the Queen gives her consent but on a specified date in the near future. In the case of legislation about which there is no controversy, the procedure may be simplified, with the first three readings in the Lords, then three in the Commons, with the Bill passing back to the Lords only if there is disagreement. The last monarch to refuse to give Royal Assent was Queen Anne in 1708.
In Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610) Cole CJ stated that, “When an Act of Parliament is against common right, reason or repugnant or impossible to performed, the common law will control it and adjudge it void”. However, this statement was made obiter which meant that it would not be followed in future cases. In Day v Savadge (1615), Hobart CJ tried to make the same claim, “Even an Act of Parliament made against natural equity as to make a man judge in his own cause, is void in itself”.
Lord Denning was particularly in favour of the Courts being able to challenge an Act of Parliament and believed that this action would bring us in line with the US where the Supreme Court is able to challenge the validity of Acts. In addition, the House of Lords in Br v Pickin (1974), stated that an Act of Parliament can never be challenged by the courts. For example, when the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, it incorporated certain ‘rights’ into UK law. However, if one of the ‘rights’ is violated by an Act of Parliament the courts may refuse to apply it, and consequently all new legislation must declare itself compatible with the Act. The effect of this is that when Acts of Parliament are ruled to be incompatible with Convention of Human Rights, the latter will prevail.
In conclusion, I am in partial agreement with the statement, “An Act of Parliament can do no wrong, though it may do several things that look pretty odd” – Holt CJ 1702, because any act of Parliament is part of law. However, an act can be reviewed and revised in light of the application of the law in court cases. The law can not obviously be related to situations or circumstances not known at the time the act is passed. For example, the ‘Theft Act 1968’ was devised in accordance with known conditions and circumstances at the time, but because social behaviour’s change or new one’s evolve over a period of time, the original act did not include reference to a recent anti-social phenomenon known as ‘joy-riding’. Therefore, the act was required to be reviewed and updated to reflect this.
An offence under s1 of the Theft Act states that anyone who ‘dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with intention of permanently depriving the other of it’ is guilty of theft. In R v Gomez (1993), it was decided that this included situations where the owner of the property handed it over to the thief because of deception.
