Next the bill is passed to the House of Lords where they will hold a first and second reading, basically outlining and discussing the bill– much like the House of Commons did. Next is the committee stage, the bill is scrutinised bit by bit by any Lord who is interested on the bill, this removes anomalies and absurdities with language. Parts can be changed or accepted. The report stage gives all the members of the House of Lords a chance to hear the changes made by the committee and also gives another chance to think about further changes before the final stage– the Third Reading. Again the main role of the House of Lords is to thoroughly analyze the bill to make sure there are no problems regarding principles or with the wording. The House of Lords can be seen as a ‘revising chamber’, it gives kind of a safety net before the bill becomes and Act of Parliament. Due to the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House of Lords have limited powers, it can only delay a bill, not reject outright.
The House of Commons review the changes made by the House of Lords and either accept or reject them. If they are rejected, the bill is passed back to the House of Lords to be amended. Sometimes the bill is passed back and forth between the two Houses, this is called ‘ping pong’ and can only happen three times before the bill is passed on for the final stage.
Before the bill can become and Act, the Monarch had to give their ‘Royal Assent’ or approval. This has been described as a ‘rubber stamping’ process as the Crown hardly ever reject bills. The last bill to be rejected was in 1707. 500 years ago, the Monarch would have signed the bill themselves but now they usually sign what is known as Letters Patent which allow the speakers of the two Houses to announce that Royal assent has been given. The other way occurs about once a year at the end of a session, it is where the Monarch signs a document which allows certain Lords to announce to both Houses that assent has been given. The overall role of the Monarch is to sign a piece of paper accepting the bill, this is seen as a formality and the Monarch doesn't really have to asses the bill. The Monarch has little power in the creation of statutes and the House of Commons has the most.
Briefly describe the advantages and disadvantages associated with this formal process and comment on how well this process works.
As with anything, there are advantages and disadvantages to statute creation in this way. One major disadvantage to this formal process is the time it takes for a bill to become an Act of Parliament, usually around 6 to 18 months. The bill is so thoroughly scrutinised that it takes a very long time to get through all of the stages and occasionally Acts are passed that never come into force for example the Easter Act 1928. Another disadvantage is that the government heavily influence which bills are heard first, additionally laws are passed in the House of Commons more easily if the government has a big majority. What's more, there have also been reports of scandal; people buying themselves into being a life peer, this is abuse of the system. Finally the monarchy has very little control or power in the process of making and passing Laws and they are the people who are supposed to be responsible for this country.
On the other hand, as of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the House of Lords abolished hereditary peers and life peers are elected for specific reasons e.g. for special qualities/ experience/ skills and/or knowledge. Therefore the people in the House of Lords bring certain qualities to statute creation.
Also one major advantage to this system is that the House of Commons is an elected body, MPs chosen by members of the general public for things they have promised. In my eyes this advantage outweighs the disadvantages. The system has worked for many, many years and our elected MPs make the country a democracy, giving us a say in what goes on and how the country should be run. Although the process is very slow, it is giving time to make sure no obscure Law is passed and to make sure the Law will work and be understood, limiting the need for interpretation by covering all aspects of the topic removing ambiguity.
