4

Does the following table mean that 6 of 33 bills that were passed in that year, originated in the House of Lords?

2016-17-session

Source.

  • It is stunning how many fewer bills are passed in the UK compared to the USA. Congress passes something on the order of ten times as many bills each year as the UK does. – ohwilleke Nov 27 '17 at 23:14
  • 1
    @ohwilleke: A lot of those US bills are for renaming post office buildings, appointing individuals to certain offices, and the like. In the UK these do not require Acts of Parliament. – Royal Canadian Bandit Nov 28 '17 at 9:39
  • 2
    @Ben: About half as many (~40 per year now, as opposed to 80 in the late 1960s / early 70s). But most of this is accounted for by (1) increased use of statutory instruments; (2) devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and NI; (3) independence of UK colonies. The EU doesn't appear to have much direct impact on Parliamentary business. – Royal Canadian Bandit Nov 28 '17 at 9:40
  • 1
    Certainly some of the reduction in Acts of Parliament is because the EU now handles certain matters. OTOH a lot of single market regs would have been handled by statutory instruments or Orders in Council. I'm just saying a lot has changed since 1972 (not least the EU itself). – Royal Canadian Bandit Nov 28 '17 at 10:11
  • 1
    @Ben Often EU membership mandates legislation that otherwise wouldn't have been adopted at all, since most EU directives operate indirectly by mandating that member states change their domestic laws, rather than by having direct effect on citizens. At least some of the legislation passed in the UK is passed specifically to meet EU mandates. Also the number of bills is particularly low when you consider that for England, parliament is acting as the equivalent of both the U.S. Congress and a state legislature and is also handling some matters left to local government in the U.S. – ohwilleke Nov 28 '17 at 14:51
2

Yes.

As noted here:

Bills are introduced in either the House of Commons or House of Lords for examination, discussion and amendment.

Although most government bills are introduced in the House of Commons (HoC), parliamentary time is a scarce resource, and for reasons of scheduling bills are sometimes introduced in the House of Lords (HoL) instead. The bill must still be debated in and passed by the HoC at a later stage.

For example, scrolling down past the first page of the document in the OP, we can see one of the 6 bills introduced in the Lords was the Bus Services Bill, which eventually became the Bus Services Act 2017.

The government must be able to command a majority in the HoC; but it also has a presence in the HoL, through members of the HoL who are affiliated to the governing party or parties. The Leader of the Lords is a Cabinet minister specifically responsible for managing government business in the HoL. (He or she has a counterpart in the HoC, who surprisingly enough is known as the Leader of the Commons.)

  • Does this mean that those bills introduced in the Lords for scheduling reasons are introduced by unelected peers, or that they are introduced by elected members in the HoC, and that peers merely act as proxies and the fact it "comes from the Lords" is only procedural. – Ben Nov 27 '17 at 11:06
  • There's no notion of a "proxy" in parliamentary procedure. If a bill is raised in the Lords, it is raised by a Lord (or Lady, or bishop...) who by definition is unelected. The House of Commons (HoC) is still closely involved in the process: It has to vote on the bill at a later stage, the government itself must be able to command a majority of votes in the HoC, and the Prime Minister and most of the Cabinet are members of the HoC. – Royal Canadian Bandit Nov 27 '17 at 11:14
  • You said that for reasons of scheduling bills are sometimes introduced in the HoL. Clearly Lords can introduce bills of their own, but can I infer from your comment that bills are sometimes created in some other way and the means of getting them to debate (via HoC or via HoL) can be chosen pragmatically (eg based on scheduling)? – Ben Nov 27 '17 at 11:17
  • 1
    Yes, that's right. The Leader of the Lords is a Cabinet minister specifically responsible for managing government business in the House of Lords. (He or she has a counterpart in the HoC, who surprisingly enough is known as the Leader of the Commons.) – Royal Canadian Bandit Nov 27 '17 at 11:28
  • 1
    You're welcome. Answer edited based on the comments. :-) – Royal Canadian Bandit Nov 27 '17 at 11:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .