Afterwards a Third Reading is given and there is a final debate, which results in another vote. If the majority is in favour of the new piece of legislation being passed, the Bill is sent to the Other House (House of Lords if Bill began in House of Commons) for similar procedures. If the houses are in disagreement under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 the legislation can be passed if the House of Commons passes it for a second time. This Act was introduced as up until the early 20th century, the House of Lords had the power to prevent legislation as Bills had to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. This changed after the House of Lords refused David Lloyds-George’s ‘people-budget’ in 1909. Eventually the budget was passed after a general election in 1910. Coincidentally, a second election was then fought on the issue of reform of the House of Lords. The outcome was the Parliament Act of 1911, which terminated the House of Lords power to prevent legislation and veto a Bill. But it is a rare occurrence that legislation is passed without the consent of both Houses.
Even so if a piece of legislation reaches and exceeds the previous stages, Royal Assent is given. This is a formality that is not undertaken by the Queen personally but signifies the Royal approval. Normally Acts of Parliament come into force at midnight after receiving Royal Assent.
To summarise these are the stages in chronological order:
-
Green Paper Consultation document on possible new law
-
White Paper Government’s firm proposals for new law
-
Draft Bill Detailed document of proposals
-
First Reading Formal introduction of Bill into the House of Commons
-
Second Reading Main debate on Bill’s principles and vote
-
Committee Stage Clause by clause consideration of Bill and suggested amendments
-
Report Stage Committee Report with suggested amendments
-
Third Reading Final debate on Bill and vote
-
Repeat of process in Other House (usually House of Lords)
- Royal Assent
I have also been asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the current legislative process in Britain. To begin this essay I will critically analyse the process.
Many criticisms can be made of the legislative process. The first main criticism that I would make is that the language of the Acts is very hard to understand. Apart from the obvious difficulties the language causes, it results in cases going to court on matter of interpretation. About 75% of all cases heard in the House of Lords involve disputes over the interpretation of Acts. Most of these cases come to court because there is no plain meaning to the words they use; there is a choice of meanings. When this happens the court may be asked not so much to choose a meaning but to rewrite the words to produce a sensible result. This raises the question of whether and to what extent it is part of the proper function of a court to rewrite statutes passed by parliament.
The abortion case, Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security (1981) illustrates an example of this. The Abortion Act 1967 stated that an abortion was lawful if the pregnancy 'is terminated by a registered medical practitioner' i.e. a doctor. In 1967 the only method of an abortion was surgical therefore doctors will have performed hospital abortions under the Act. However, by the 1980s the standard method was medical induction i.e. drip-feeding a drug which induces discharge of the foetus. Nurses acting on doctor’s instructions carry out the routine steps in the method. So were these abortions lawful?
The pregnancies were actually performed by nurses not by doctors. The case went to the House of Lords. The majority of the law lords were prepared to treat the words of the act as meaning 'is terminated by treatment of a doctor.' They were influenced by what they considered to be the policy of the act namely, broadening the grounds of lawful abortion and ensuring that it was carried out with proper skill. The minority felt that the Act shouldn't be rewritten in this way. Rather it should be 'construed with caution' because it dealt with 'a controversial subject involving moral or social judgements on which opinions strongly differ.'
This means that time is spent on interpreting the Acts because of obscure and complex language. The time spent in the House of Lords interpreting Acts could be used a lot better and if the language was understandable no such problem should occur.
The public are supposed to be able to read and understand the Acts in order to follow them. So how are people supposed to follow the law if they don't know what it is and can't understand it? It would be impossible to know what the law is from these Acts.
Another criticism that I would make is that the Government dominates legislative decisions. In theory this a good thing because it makes legislation democratic because the public voted for the Government to be in power, but the truth of it is there are more people who don't vote at general elections than people who do. So the majority of the public could in fact want a different party in Government.
Citizens don't have any involvement in the law making process at all; the citizens are represented by their local MP. The MPs are supposed to represent the opinions of his constituency, but more often than not MPs represent the views of his or her party. The Government has the majority of MPs in the House of Commons, so if there is a vote the Government will always win because the MPs of that Party will nearly always go along with their Party. This makes the legislative process not very democratic because the MPs that are supposed to represent the people's opinions only back up the opinions of their Government. But the Government does have to respond to public demand sometimes; this is a direct result from pressure groups. It is also a way of increasing popularity, which may secure votes in elections. So although the Government do dominate the legislative process the public can have an impact, and they did vote for that party to be in power so it is in theory democratic.
Further more in order for legislation to be passed a Bill has to go through the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons, even though the House of Lords don't have the power to stop a Bill becoming legislation. The only power the House of Lords have is to delay the Bill for a year. In this year media attention builds up and it allows the Government to know how the public feel. So if the House of Lords have no real power over legislation because they are not democratically elected what good comes of them? The same could be said for Royal Assent, it is just a formality because it is not the Queens place to refuse a Bill and she never will. So surely it is a waste of time.
In conclusion, I feel that although there are some aspects, which can be improved, overall the legislative process is successful even if slow and sometimes difficult to understand. I believe this because as ideas and attitudes change society evolves and the law can be updated and reformed to coincide with matters arising. I would however simplify language to make Acts easier to understand, which would help speed up the process. In addition the legislative process also provides and stable and balanced control over society helping to keep the country civilised!
