Passing a Bill without the consent of the House of Lords (Parliament Act 1911 s.2, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949)
The Government introduces a Local Transport Bill in the House of Commons. It is not a Money Bill and contains nothing about the length of Parliaments. The Bill receives its Commons second reading, passes the Commons and is sent to the House of Lords several months before the end of the session, but the Lords vote it down. In the next session an identical Bill is introduced, passes the Commons and is again sent to the Lords well over a month before the session ends. The Lords reject it a second time. The Commons has not directed that the Parliament Acts should not apply.
Which of the following best describes when the Bill may be presented for Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: After the second rejection, provided one year has passed between its Commons second reading in the first session and its passing the Commons in the second.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A public Bill (not a Money Bill or one extending Parliament's life) rejected by the Lords in two successive sessions can receive Royal Assent without them if a year separates the required Commons stages.
Passing a Bill without the consent of the House of Lords (Parliament Act 1911 s.2, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949)
Section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949, provides that if a Public Bill (other than a Money Bill or a Bill to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years) is passed by the Commons in two successive sessions and, having been sent up to the Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is rejected by the Lords in each of those sessions, it shall on its second rejection be presented for Royal Assent and become an Act notwithstanding the Lords' lack of consent, unless the Commons directs otherwise. The proviso is that this does not take effect unless one year has elapsed between the date of the Bill's second reading in the Commons in the first session and the date it passes the Commons in the second session. All the other conditions are met on these facts, so the one-year requirement is the remaining condition.
Why B is wrong: The one-month limit applies only to Money Bills under s.1; other public Bills need two sessions and a one-year interval.
Why C is wrong: The Parliament Act 1949 reduced the requirement from three successive sessions to two.
Why D is wrong: Section 2(1) lets a qualifying public Bill become law without the Lords' consent, so there is no absolute veto.
Why E is wrong: The proviso to s.2(1) requires one year between the first-session Commons second reading and the second-session Commons passage.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Effect of a declaration of incompatibility (HRA 1998 ss.3-4)
Which of the following best describes the effect of the declaration?
Constitutional statutes and implied repeal (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council)
Which of the following best describes how the court is likely to approach the implied repeal argument, applying Thoburn v Sunderland City Council?
Prerogative power and statute covering the same ground (De Keyser principle, Miller)
Which of the following best describes the lawfulness of relying on the prerogative?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.