The Parliament Acts and Reforms to the House of Lords - Essay Example

The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 Reforms to the House of Lords The Parliamentary Acts of 1911 and 1949 in the United Kingdom form part of the constitution of the United Kingdom. The two Acts are renown for the eminent role they played in the ultimate reduction of the powers of the House of Lords in various ways. This paper therefore analyses how the two Acts have contributed to the reduction of the Powers of the House of Lords. Much emphasis is placed on the provision of each of these Acts and how each of them contributed to this task. With reference to the Act of Parliament 1911, the UK parliament deprived the House of Lords of its absolute power of veto on legislation. The act was as result of a reaction to the rivalry between the incumbent government and the House of Lords with regards to the 1909 People’s Budget. The chancellor of the exchequer of the time named David Lloyd George, had proposed the incorporation of a land tax (Dorey and Kelso 119-124). The new tax would have adverse effects on owners of large pieces of lands, majority of who were persons in the conservative opposition. In this regards, the conservatives believed in another alternative source which was to be tariffs on imports as this has much prospects to the British local industries as well. They had leverage in their large majority numbers which they used to vote down the budget. This was even perpetuated further by the veto power they possessed on Public Bills. This challenged the Liberals so much that they prioritized reducing the power of the Lords come the next general elections. After the elections, the Liberals still formed the minority government hence the Lords subsequently accepted the People Budget only after the land tax proposal had been dropped (Dorey and Kelso 126). The dispute over the budget however prompted the government to introduce new resolutions which were geared towards limiting the power of the Lords. The bill was voted down in 1910 prompting a second general election which saw the liberals form the minority government once more (Thompson 163). Some of the Conservative Lords were neutralized. This gave a leeway for the passage of the act on 10thAugust, 1911 when the House of Lords passed the Parliament Act that was yet to reduce the House of Lord’s veto powers. The provisions of the Act abolished any veto powers of the House of Lords to any public bill introduced in the House of Commons. Exception was however granted to Bills which contain any provision to extend the maximum duration of parliament beyond the normal five years or any Bill confirming provisional order (Gordon 14-19). Again, the Bill did not alter any provision to the Bills introduced in the House of Common, as well as Private Bills and delegated legislations (Gordon 19). The Labour government amended the 1911 Act to further reduce the power of the House of Lords. This was prompted by the fears that the radical programme of nationalism which they advocated for, would be delayed by the House of the Lords barring its completion within the life of the parliament (Thompson 191). In 1947, a Bill aimed at reducing the time by which the Lords were bound to delay Bills form three sessions over two years to two sessions over a year, was introduced. After an attempt by the Lords to block the bill, it was reintroduced in 1948 and 1911 as well (Thompson 193). The Bill was finally passed in 1949 with the application the provisions of the 1911 Act. The passing of the 1949 Act into law prompted various controversies. A number of legal personalities raised some doubts as to whether the use of the 1911 Act to pass the1949 Act, which in turn amended the 1911 Act itself was valid (Zander 94). They claimed that, the continued ability of the Lords to veto a bill to prolong the parliament life would not be entrenched if the 1911 Act could be used to amend itself first as this could end up removing this restriction (Hood 42). Also, they argued that the 1949 Act could be considered as a secondary legislation as it is contingent on the validity of the 1911 Act. This contravenes the principle that hold that courts will respect an Act of Parliament without inquiring its origins (Hood 42-43). Again, as asserted by Hood (43), they justified their position by arguing that, under the 1911 Act, the Commons and the Lords together (Parliament) delegated its ability to pass legislation to another body, the Commons alone. This contravenes the legal principles in the Declaratory Act which hold that a subordinate legislative body cannot use the Act under which legislated power was delegated to it to expand its competence without express power to do so (Hood 43). There have also been some instances of legal challenges to the 1949 Act. The first one whose records are unclear, is believed to be during the first prosecution made following war crimes under the War Crimes Act 1991 (Zander 101). In the case, the second defendant was prosecuted basing on the provision of War Crimes Act and subjected to a life imprisonment sentence. Later on, the War Crimes Act was amended by two further Acts, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as well as the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Zander 94). According to Zander (95), the two Acts were passed by both houses and then received royal assent thus, the validity of the War Crimes Act is not under question. Nonetheless, the validity of the validity of Act made under the 1949 Act was never questioned in court again until when Parliament Acts were used to pass in the Hunting Act 2004. Consequently, the Countryside Alliance took a case to court in 2005 to challenge the validity of 1949 Act (Carrol 287). The High Court held that the wording in the 1911 Act was not meant to implicate any entrenchment. Also, it held that the 1949 Act was primary legislation (Carrol 288). This implies that the 1911 Act permits the procedure which is specified in the Parliament Act to be used for any Public Bill. This way, it sufficiently disposed the argument that the 1911 Act could not be used to amend itself. The High Court therefore, presumed the perspective of the 1911 Act as a remodeling the constitution as opposed to delegation of power (Carrol 287-294). Be that as it may, the both the 1911 Act and the 1949 Acts have been used in various instance. For instance, prior to its amendment, the 1911 Act was used in three recorded instances. The first instance involved the Welsh Church Act of 1914 whereby the Welsh segment of the Church of England was disestablished in the year 1920 and became the Church in Wales (Gordon 14-19). The second instance involved the Government of Ireland Act 1914 that would ultimately have established a Home Rule Government. Owing to the First World War, its implementation was blocked. The last instance involved the Parliament Act 1949 which ultimately amended the Parliament Act 1911 itself which has been discussed in this paper at length (Gordon 14-19). On the other hand, the Amended form of the 1911 Act has been used on four occasions. The firs one, as discussed above, involved the War Crimes Act 1911 which resulted to the extension of jurisdiction of the British courts to acts committed during the Second World War on behalf of the Nazi German (Gordon 14-15). The second instance involves the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which resulted to a change in the election system to the European Parliament to proportional representation. Prior to the new system, there was the use of a system referred to as first past the post (Gordon 15). The other instance involved the Sexual Offences Amendment Act 2000 by which the age of consent for male homosexual sexual activities was equalised with that for female homosexuals and heterosexual sexual activities (Gordon 15-16). Consequently, the age was pegged at 16. The final instance involved the Hunting Act 2004. This act prohibited hare coursing and hunting of wild mammals using dogs. In conclusion, as sustained by the above discussion, it palpable that the two Acts: the Parliamentary Acts of 1911 and 1949 have remarkably reduced the power of the House of the Lords. For instance, the Act of Parliament 1911 scrapped of House of Lords the veto power to any public Bill introduced in the House of Lords. The Act of Parliament 1949 on the other hand, amended the Act of Parliament 1911 reducing the power of the House of Lords even further. Works Cited Dorey, Peter, and Alexandra, Kelso. House of Lords Reform Since 1911: Must the Lords Go? Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Print. Carrol, Alex. Constitutional & Administrative Law: UK Edition. 6th ed. London: Trans-Atlantic Publications, 2012. Print. Hood, Kirsty. The Conflict of Laws within the UK: Oxford Private International Law Series. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. Barnett, Hilaire. Constitutional and Administrative Law. 8th ed. London: Routledge, 2010. Print. Gordon, Richard. Repairing British Politics: A Blueprint for Constitutional Change. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010. Print. Thompson, Brian. Textbook on Constitutional and Administrative Law. 3rd ed. Norwich: Blackstone Press, 1997. Print. Zander, Michael. The Law-Making Process: Law in Context. 6th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Print. Read More