From: guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,uk.politics
Subject: Bills in Parliament
Date: 11 Nov 92 19:43:03 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

Today I looked up Erskine May, the "bible" of Parliamentary procedure
(the 1983 edition, since there wasn't a later edition readily
available), for some details on the nature of Parliamentary bills and
their passage through the House.  This was partly to clear up
confusion over the nature of last week's vote on the Maastricht
treaty, and partly in response to anw@maths.nott.ac.uk (Dr A. N.
Walker), who wrote in another thread:

  The meta-laws in the UK are perfectly well written-down; but they
  are for the most part not themselves laws [as you indeed require].
  (Some are -- eg, the laws governing who can vote.)  An example of such
  a meta-law is the one banning hybrid Bills [...]

On the latter point I'm afraid Dr Walker is mistaken.  This is from
the section on Bills (p. 290):

  A bill is a draft of a legislative proposal which, when it has been
  passed through its various stages in both Houses and received the
  Royal assent, becomes an Act of Parliament.  Bills are sub-divided
  into public, private and hybrid.
  
  (i) Public bills are so called because they deal with matters of
  public general interest.  In most cases they are introduced and
  piloted throught the House by a member of the Government, and are
  referred to as "Government bills"; other bills are known as
  "unofficial Members' bills", or colloquially as "private Members'
  bills" (not to be confused with private bills).  ...
  
  (ii) Private bills are bills for the particular interest or benefit
  of any person or persons.  They are subject to a procedure ... which
  is different from that used in passing public bills, and is governed
  by a separate set of Standing Orders, known as the "Standing Orders
  Relating to Private Business".  ...
  
  (iii) Hybrid bills, as their name implies, are public bills which
  may in certain respects affect private rights, and are dealt with
  by a special procedure, described in [named section].

Now, the Maastricht bill.  Given that the bill had its second reading
in the spring (when it was passed by a thumping majority), what did
last week's "paving motion" achieve?  Here's Erskine May's synopsis of
the stages of a bill in the Commons; note especially the section I've
starred in the margin.

  The first reading of a bill is now purely formal.  The purpose
  of each of the effective stages is as follows:

  SECOND READING.  The stage of second reading is primarily concerned
  with the principle of a measure.  At this stage debate is not strictly
  limited to the contents of a bill, but other methods of attaining its
  proposed object may be considered, and even the inclusion of cognate
  objects recommended.
  
  COMMITTEE.  In committee the details of a measure are the primary 
  object of consideration, and alterations in its provisions are
* proposed.  But amendment must be compatible with the principle
* of the bill which the House is taken to have affirmed on second
* reading.  Hence an amendment which destroys the principle of
  a bill, for instance, is out of order.

  CONSIDERATION ON REPORT.  This stage used to consist mainly of the
  amendments made in committee in order to decide upon their acceptance
  or rejection.  Nowadays, the Speaker tends to use his power of
  selection against amendments which have been fully debated in
  committee, and consideration is concentrated on amendments which the
  Government has either accepted subject to re-drafting or undertaken to
  reconsider, and new amendments.

  THIRD READING.  The purpose of the third reading is to review a bill
  in its final form after the shaping it has received in the earlier
  stages.  In the interests of brevity, debate at this stage is
  eliminated unless at least six Members give notice of an amendment to
  the question for third reading or of a motion that the question be not
  put forthwith.  When debate takes place, it is confined strictly to
  the contents of a bill, and cannot wander afield as on second reading.

  FINANCIAL RESOLUTION.  [Not relevant here]

So if the principle of the Maastricht bill was affirmed by the House at
second reading, what more was the Government trying to achieve by
having an extra vote?

-- 
Guy Barry | Computer Laboratory     | Centre for Cognitive Science
          | University of Cambridge | University of Edinburgh
          | Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk  | guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
          | +44 (0)223 334757       | +44 (0)31 650 4413
Xref: sparky soc.culture.british:15821 soc.culture.celtic:7314