Question about House of Lords

[JJ2006]

Hi, I was just wondering if anyone could explain to me when changes in the law have to go through the House of Lords for approval.

Do all changes have to go through? I know things like id cards and detention limits do, but what about things like the proposed changes to our immigration system?

Thanks

[jake-the-peg]

There is something called the parliament act

It allows the House of Commons to overrule the House of Lords. It's very rarely used. The only occasions were

The disestablishment of the Welsh part of the Church of England

Irish home rule

When the 1911 parliament act was used to pass the 1949 parliament act.

Warcrimes act

Gay age of consent

and the abolishion of hunting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts

[Rollo]

In general:-

All new laws usually need to be passed by both houses of parliament before they can be enacted.

The House of Commons can override a veto by the house of Lords, under the Parliament Act, if the bill started its parliamentary journey in the Commons, but there is a delay before that can happen.

But, Bills concerning "money", like the Finance Bill cannot be vetoed by the Lords

[jake-the-peg]

Sorry about the spelling of "Abolishion" I seem to have come over all Sean Connery

[Gromit]

There are no changes to the UK immigration system in the pipeline.

UK Borders Act 2007 received Royal Assent on 30 October 2007. This means it has been passed by both the Commons and Lords.

Any future changes are outlined in the Queens' speech where the government's legislative programme is published. At the last Queens speech, there were no Bills promised on Immigration.

Queens speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7079333 .stm

[Buenchico]

All 'primary' legislation has to be passed by both Houses (except, as stated, when the Parliament Act is used).

However, much of the legislation which is thus brought into effect includes 'enabling' powers, permitting the relevant Secretary of State (or other relevant authority) to sort out the finer points of the law by introducing Regulations (which have the effect of law). For example, the Health Act bans smoking in enclosed public spaces but doesn't provide an exact definition of 'an enclosed public space'. It simply includes provision for the Secretary of State to decide, through Regulations, exactly what constitutes such a space.

Similarly, new legislation no longer refers to, say, 'a maximum fine of �1000'. (If it did, Parliament would periodically have to spend time updating the legislation, through both Houses, to keep pace with inflation). Legislation now refers to, say, 'a maximum fine at level 3 on the Standard Scale'. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 provides the Secretary of State with enabling powers to determine the maximum amounts which shall apply to each point on the Standard Scale.

There are sometimes 'grey areas'. The courts have occasionally ruled Regulations, brought in under enabling legislation, as invalid, requiring the Government to introduce primary legislation.

Jacqui Smith clearly believes that enabling legislation gives her the powers to amend UK visa rules, without the need to introduce new primary legislation. It's likely that she's right when it comes to simply reducing the maximum stay, for non-EU passport holders on a tourist visa) from 6 months to 3. Human rights lawyers may well try to challenge any decision to introduce a bond system through Regulations, rather than through primary legislation, on the grounds that the Home Secretary will be exceeding the enabling powers granted to her.

Chris

[R1Man]

So Jake the parliament act is used for really important stuff then! like the last 2! Make it legal for ******** to b66er 16 year olds and that other vital to the nation law, stop the toffs hunting lovely furry foxes, I see the priorities where really right on! Noo Labour bl00dy marvellous ain't they!