8. Parliament

Public Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 305-355
Author(s):  
John Stanton ◽  
Craig Prescott
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Law Making

This chapter discusses the functions, structure, and procedures of Parliament. Parliament’s main functions are to be the forum for debate on the main issues of the day; to represent citizens; to enact legislation; and to hold the government to account. Parliament has three elements: the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the monarch. The chapter focuses on the two Houses, often referred to as ‘chambers’. The main output of Parliament is legislation. There are two forms of legislation. Primary legislation, referred to as Acts of Parliament, which are the exercise of Parliament’s legal supremacy to change the law, either by making new law or amending or abolishing existing law. Parliament also has the power to delegate its law-making power to others, usually to the government, allowing them to make delegated legislation according to the terms set out by Parliament.

8. Parliament

Public Law ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Stanton ◽  
Craig Prescott
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Law Making

This chapter discusses the functions, structure, and procedures of Parliament. Parliament's main functions are to be the forum for debate on the main issues of the day; to represent citizens; to enact legislation; and to hold the government to account. Parliament has three elements: the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the monarch. The chapter focuses on the two Houses, often referred to as ‘chambers’. The main output of Parliament is legislation. There are two forms of legislation. Primary legislation, referred to as Acts of Parliament, which are the exercise of Parliament's legal supremacy to change the law, either by making new law or amending or abolishing existing law. Parliament also has the power to delegate its law-making power to others, usually to the government, allowing them to make delegated legislation according to the terms set out by Parliament.

3. Legislation and the law-making process

2020 ◽  
pp. 70-114
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley ◽  
Birju Kotecha
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Law Making

The UK Parliament makes legislation in the form of primary legislation called Acts of Parliament and grants powers to other bodies to make legislation on Parliament’s behalf, in the form of secondary legislation or delegated legislation. Parliament is composed of three bodies, the Queen in Parliament, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords. A draft piece of legislation, a bill, to become an Act of Parliament must be passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and then receive the royal assent. If the House of Commons and House of Lords cannot agree on legislation this is dealt with under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Secondary or delegated legislation is necessary for a number of reasons but is subject to controls both parliamentary and in the courts.

3. Legislation and the law-making process

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Wilson ◽  
Helen Rutherford ◽  
Tony Storey ◽  
Natalie Wortley
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Law Making

The UK Parliament makes legislation in the form of primary legislation called Acts of Parliament and grants powers to other bodies to make legislation on Parliament’s behalf, in the form of secondary legislation or delegated legislation. Parliament is composed of three bodies, the Queen in Parliament, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords. A draft piece of legislation, a bill, to become an Act of Parliament must be passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and then receive the royal assent. If the House of Commons and House of Lords cannot agree on legislation this is dealt with under the Parliament Act 1911 and 1949. Secondary or delegated legislation is necessary for a number of reasons but is subject to controls both parliamentary and in the courts.

The Franklin search in Parliament

Polar Record ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (182) ◽  
pp. 209-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian R. Stone
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
Main Subject ◽  
Members Of Parliament ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Government

ABSTRACTThe record of Parliamentary proceedings relating to the Franklin search covers the period 1848–1863. The main subject of discussion was the need for the government to mount search expeditions, while topics such as rewards for successful expeditions and the question of the provision of monuments to Sir John Franklin also occupied Parliamentary time. Interest in the matter among Members of Parliament crossed party boundaries. Most of the activity was in the House of Commons rather than in the House of Lords, because the former House had control of expenditure. A further reason was that the government was more exposed to questioning in the House of Commons, because, for most of the period, the First Lord of the Admiralty was a member of that House. Lady Franklin also had a wider range of acquaintance in the House of Commons and was able to conduct a lobbying campaign using it as a medium.

The Concerns of the Founders

2020 ◽  
pp. 21-42
Author(s):  
Howard Gillman ◽  
Erwin Chemerinsky
Keyword(s):  
North America ◽  
Religious Diversity ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Religious Doctrine ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
British Colonies ◽  
Law Making

In the century after the founding of the British colonies in North America, the traditional governing model of establishment (of an official religion) plus conformity (to government-approved religious doctrine and practice) was replaced by a view that the government should be secular and tolerant of religious diversity. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights constructed a government that claimed no relationship to any particular religion, insisted on no test for religious office, vested in the law-making body no authority to legislate on matters of religion, and specifically prohibited the passage of any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Even with these historic changes, the Constitution left unresolved some basic questions about the meaning of the Religion Clauses.

31. Parliament and Freedom of Information

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Worthy
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
High Profile ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

This chapter considers the impact of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 on the UK Parliament. Since 2005, FOI 2000 has helped make both the House of Commons and the House of Lords more open and accountable. The most high-profile effect of the law came in 2009, when it played a part in exposing the abuse of the expense allowance system. Despite the scandal, it is not clear whether FOI has transformed the culture of the two Houses. Nevertheless, the law has indirectly sparked a series of other reforms, so that FOI now sits alongside a whole range of instruments intended to make Parliament more open and accessible. The chapter first provides an overview of what FOIs consist of, their application to legislatures and Westminster specifically, before analysing the extent of the impact of FOI 2000 on the UK Parliament.

10. EU Legislation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Beale ◽  
Libby Kurien ◽  
Eve Samson
Keyword(s):  
Direct Access ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
National Parliaments ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the ways in which the UK Parliament formally constrains the government and engages with European Union (EU) institutions. The House of Lords and the House of Commons both have processes to ensure that legislation proposed at the EU level has been properly reviewed before it takes effect in UK law. The ‘scrutiny reserve’, which stipulates that ministers should not agree to proposals under scrutiny, is used to elicit information about the government's negotiating position. Parliament also has a role in examining EU legislation and providing direct access to European institutions. The chapter first provides an overview of the EU legislative process, focusing on three principal EU institutions: member states, the European Parliament (EP), and the European Commission. It also considers the formal role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process, the UK Parliament's scrutiny of the EU legislation and its effectiveness, and parliamentary scrutiny after Brexit.

5. Parliamentary sovereignty

2019 ◽  
pp. 99-123
Author(s):  
Anne Dennett
Keyword(s):  
Legislative Process ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Legislative Power ◽  
Legal Limits ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Uk ◽  
A Current ◽  
Law Making

This chapter focuses on parliamentary sovereignty. The term ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ is normally defined as the ‘legislative supremacy of Parliament’. Since the constitutional settlement brought about by the Bill of Rights 1689, the UK Parliament has had unchallenged authority to create primary law. Parliament's legislative supremacy means, therefore, that there is no competing body with equal or greater law-making power and there are no legal limits on Parliament's legislative competence. Parliament has broad legislative power but cannot make unchangeable statutes, and a current parliament can reverse laws made by a previous parliament. Nobody but Parliament can override Acts of Parliament. The Enrolled Bill rule requires that, if a Bill has passed through the House of Commons and House of Lords and received royal assent, the courts will not enquire into what happened before or during the legislative process.

The London ‘Insurrection’ of December 1792: Fact, Fiction, or Fantasy?

1978 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Emsley
Keyword(s):  
Saturday Morning ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Commons ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Times ◽  
Made In

As the likelihood of war with revolutionary France grew at the end of 1792 and beginning of 1793, the pro-government press in England reported that a serious plan for an insurrection, scheduled for the first weekend in December 1792, had been nipped in the bud by the authorities. On December 3 The Times stated that, as it had not wished to create alarm, it had not previously mentioned the full facts of the seditious attempts being made in the country. These attempts, the newspaper maintained, had prompted almost daily meetings of the Cabinet climaxing in a meeting at Lord Grenville's house which had lasted until one a.m. on the preceding Saturday morning (December 1). It was from this meeting that the Cabinet had issued the royal proclamation which embodied part of the militia and which deplored the ineffectiveness of the May 1792 proclamation against seditious meetings and writings. Three weeks later, beneath the headline “Revolution Plans,” the World reported that two parties were involved in the projected insurrection: the “moderates” who sought first the destruction of the House of Lords, the Herald's Office, and the Horse Guards, and then the enlarging of the Commons; and those whose plans were “more extensive” and who would have gone on to destroy St. James's Palace, the Bank, the law courts, the prisons, the customs house, and excise office. A month later, under the headline “Project of an Insurrection,” the London Chronicle gave similar details of a plot “to overturn the government and the constitution of this country.”

The politics of the enabling act (1919)

1975 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 383-392
Author(s):  
David M. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Church And State ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Single Person ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Continuous Stream ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
Political Success ◽  
A Current

I doubt whether any event in the constitutional history of Church and State (wrote Randall Davidson in February 1921) has ever been wrought out with so little friction, and on so smooth a current as this great change ... I think it is indisputable that if we had failed in December 1919 to get through Parliament what is popularly known as the Enabling Bill, we might have waited for it for many a long year with increasing and most harmful loss of enthusiasm, and growth of irritation among the progressive groups. Instead of this we have had a continuous stream of praise and thankful gratulation at the way in which the new system has begun to work.These words are a useful reminder that contemporaries were surprised at the easy passage of the enabling act, and that its success therefore requires explanation. The ‘rightness of the cause’ has tended to obscure the fact that right causes often fail. Moreover subsequent criticisms of the act, and particularly the disappointment of the life and liberty movement with what followed, have tended to minimise the significance of the changes it made. Nevertheless the charisma of William Temple and Dick Sheppard seems to have led even the critics to attribute the act’s success to the life and liberty movement; viscount Wolmer’s church self-government association has been relegated to the sidelines; and the verdict of bishop Bell (who in 1919 was Davidson’s chaplain) that ‘Its achievement was due to Randall Davidson more than to any other single person’ has been forgotten. In this paper I shall argue that the political success of the enabling act requires a political explanation, that parliamentary tactics in both the house of commons and the house of lords are therefore of prime importance, and that the significance of the success is enhanced by a fact which has never been discussed before - the initial opposition of the government of the day.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document