Importance of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 in Reforming the House of Lords - Assignment Example

Importance of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 in reforming the House of Lords The Parliament Acts of 1911and 1949 are acts of parliament that are incorporated in the United Kingdom’s constitution. The Parliament Acts of 1911 sought to limit the legislation blocking powers of the House of Lords, and allowed the House of Commons to pass legislations, without first obtaining the approval of the House of Lords.1 The act also amended the constitution and limited the lifespan of a parliament from 7years to 5years. When the Parliament Acts of 1949 was enacted, it served to amend the Parliament Acts of 1911, by reducing the duration the House Lords could delay Bills from two years to one-year period. 3 The two acts are important legislations, in that they limited the powers and the privileges wielded by the House of Lords, and sought to give the common person more powers through the empowerment of the House of Commons. The legislations are however not without issues, as demonstrated in the Jackson v Attorney General [2005] case regarding the legality of the application of Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 to pass the Hunting Act, making it illegal to hunt wild animals using dogs, except in very limited circumstances. 6The case was heard by a Divisional court and later passed on the court of appeal. The court of appeal decision was that constitutional changes could not be passed under the parliament act of 1911. 2The legal issues raised in this case is that any legislation done under the parliament Act of 1911 was not primary, but a subordinate one. The legislative power wielded by the Act was not limited, and thus was open to statutory interpretation. Upon reaching the decision, the judges raised the issue that the Act did not authorize the House of Commons to change or remove any conditions on which the law-making power is based. 6 The judges observed that the 1911 Act was wide to authorize some amendments of the commons law making power, contrary to the 1949 Act, which was observed to be substantial and significant. 6The discussion by the judges was that it was highly unlikely that the House of Commons could contemplate to use the Act to enact a legislation that the House of Lords had not consented to or to abolish the House of Lords completely. 2 If however, the House of Commons had such intentions, then it would be seen as contrary to the intentions of the parliament, when it was enacting such legislations. This gives the opinion that the 1911 act was much ambiguous, and require situational interpretation for its effective applicability. The roots of the two legislations can be traced back to the Budgeting done in the year 1909, which proposed the taxation of lands, with the ideas that a land tax should be introduced to raise budget money. The conservatives, who were mainly the large landowners opposed the proposal and saw its downfall through the House of Lords where they wielded immense power. Consequently, there was a perceived need to limit the powers of the House of Lords, through granting the House of Commons more power, most significantly the power to pass legislations without seeking the approval of the House of Lords. 1The agenda of the refused budget proposal become the bottom-line of the 1910 elections, where the liberals sought to limit the powers of the House of the Lords, when they got back to parliament t after the elections. This was eventually to happen, a milestone that saw the power of the House of Lords, to control and scrutinize all legislations and give their approval before any legislation was passed to a law curtailed. The provisions of Parliament Acts of 1911 underlined the fact that the House of Lords no longer had powers to veto any legislation emanating from the House of Commons. The only exception granted was on the issue of extending the maximum term of the parliament from to over five years. 2 The effect of this was to scrap off the powers of the House of Lords, leaving them with only an authority to delay bills but not to reject them. They were to delay any money bill for a maximum duration of one month, and any other bill to a maximum of one-year period. The powers to determine which Bills were to be classified as money bills was also scrapped from the House of Lords and handed over to the speaker of the parliament. 6However, the act was only to affect the Bills introduced in the House of Commons, with no effect on those introduced by the House of Lords or the private Bills. There are some powers that were granted to the House of Commons through the legislation of these acts. First, if the Money Bill is presented to the House of Lords a month before the end of the session, and for whatever reason they fail to pass it without an amendment, the House of Commons obtained he power to have the Bill presented for Royal assent by the King/Queen. This is regardless of the fact that the House of Lords did not approve or pass the Bill. 1 However, the Bill had to be first certified by the speaker as a Money Bill. Second, if any other bill, other than the Money Bill or a Bill to extend the maximum term of a parliament is passed by the House of Commons, in two successive sessions, and presented to the House of Lords for approval at least a month before the end of the session, it can become a law. This is regardless of the fact that for whatever reason the House of Lords may have failed to pass the Bill. The Bill is amenable to be presented for Royal assent to become an act of parliament. This is so, unless voted to the contrary by the House of Commons. 3 All it requires is the confirmation by the speaker that all the due process has been followed in enacting the Bill. The act went on to provide for when such Royal assent should be sought, through the determination of what was to be considered a rejected Bill. The Bill is considered rejected by the House of Commons, if the House of Lords does not pass the Bill, when it has the necessary amendments agreed by both houses or when the House of Lords do not recommend any amendment, yet fails to pass the Bill in question. 4 Third, there was a provision to the effect that nothing was to diminish or qualify the existing powers and privileges of the House of Commons. 1 This was a provision to ensure that the House of Commons and the power to approve any amendment made by the house of lords, which was to do with the waiver of the privilege of that house. 4This provision further sought to strengthen and empower the House of Commons, in the standings of the House of Lords. Four, a provision to the effect that there could be no more extension of the maximum duration of a parliament beyond five years, was established. This sought to ensure that the House of Lords could not extend the duration of parliaments life beyond five years. In so doing, the general voting public, as represented by the House of Commons were to wield the power of determining the maximum term that a parliament can serve, as opposed to earlier on, When the parliament, through the House of Lords could extend its lifespan to seven years. 4All these provisions sought to empower the House of Commons, and by extension the public, who votes for the member’s o the House of Commons as their representatives. In 1949, immediately after the end of the second world war, the powers of the house of lords were sought to be limited further, through the repealing of the Parliament Acts of 1911, by the introduction of the Parliament Acts of 1949. 6 This repealing occurred due to the fear of the Labour government that the House of Lords were likely to delay the nationalization effort. This amendment of the Parliament Acts of 1911 by the 1949 parliamentary act saw the applicability of law, in a form beyond which it would not have been applied before. It formed the basis for the founding of War crime act of 1991, extending the jurisdiction of the UK courts to the acts committed on behalf of the Nazi Germany in World War II. 5 These parliament acts have been used consistently by subsequent governments to compel the Lords to approve of some legislation that they would otherwise have not assented to. Notable among these occurrences where the House of Lords have been compelled to pass the legislations is Temperance (Scotland) Act1913. 1 It allowed the voter residing in a district to determine whether the district remains dry or wet, their voting. The other good example is the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act, which changed the act that was earlier made to that effect. Aircraft and Ship building Industries Act 1977, which served to nationalize a large part of the UK Aerospace and Shipbuilding industries, consequently establishing two corporations, the British Aerospace and the British Shipbuilders, is yet another legislation that was made possible by the establishment of these Acts. 5Not all these occurrences and legislations would have been possible without the enactment of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The acts have gone a long way in making legislations that would have otherwise been rejected to be approved, mostly though a consensus of the two houses. However, some concerns have been raised regarding the validity of the Parliament act of 1949, where it has been observed as legislation dependent on another. The Act has been considered non-operational without the substance of the Parliament Acts of 1911. 2 To address this issue, a private members Bill was introduced in 2000-2001, to confirm, validate and legitimize this act. Therefore, it can be observed that the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 have served a very important role in addressing the excessive powers ad authority previously held by the House of Lords. This has worked to the advantage of the House of Commons, and by extension to the public, in that some legislation and enactments that would not have been possible initially are now in place. Thus, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 are effective tools for limiting the powers of the House of Lords and empowering the House of Commons. It is therefore observed that these two acts have served to increase democracy in the United Kingdom. Works Cited 1Barnett, Hilaire, Constitutional & Administrative Law (8th ed.), New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011. p155-180. 2Bradley, Ewing, Constitutional and Administrative Law (14th ed.), Harlow, United Kingdom: Longman, 2007. p20-30. 3Ensor, Rock. England 1870–1914. The Oxford History of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.p8-56. 4Jackson, Paul. Constitutional and Administrative Law (8th ed.). London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2001. p150-170. 5Keir, David. The Constitutional History of Modern Britain. London: A & C Black, 1938.p5-10. 6Leopold, Patricia, The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, London: Cavendish Pub Ltd, 2001.p11-25. Read More