Bill's rite of passage faces pitfalls

March 31, 2000

BY INTRODUCING the Teaching and Higher Education Bill in the House of Lords the government has left its legislation vulnerable to a major potential pitfall.

This is because bills introduced in the Lords do not attract the protection of the Parliament Act that governs the passage of proposed legislation through both the Lords and Commons.

Peers, many of whom are hostile to provisions in the bill, may reject it outright or object to one or more clauses. If the bill is thrown out the government can only reintroduce it with a different title or number.

If the peers object to certain clauses, the bill then goes to the Commons for consideration of any Lords' amendments. It is then put before the Lords a second time. The same can happen again and this to and fro between the two chambers continues until agreement is reached.

If the chambers fail to agree then the government could decide to drop the bill in favour of introducing it in the Commons. The bill then falls under the provisions of the Parliament Act. The bill would then make its way through its first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading in the Commons before going to the Lords.

Another rejection by the Lords would force the government to wait until the next session to reintroduce the same bill to the Lords. If rejected again the government could then invoke the Parliament Act, which would mean that on its return to the Commons it could pass the bill for Royal Assent without further delay.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns