Bills have to go through the same stages in both Houses. However, procedures differ considerably. In the Lords, for example, there are no guillotine or programme motions and no selection of amendments for debate: all amendments tabled by peers are considered. One other major difference is when the Bill reaches Third Reading. In the Commons, this is the final stage of approval and MPs may vote to give it a Third Reading.
Many people appear to assume that the procedure is comparable in the Lords and we occasionally get people writing asking us to vote for, or against, a Bill on Third Reading. That, though, is not what happens in the Lords. The motion for Third Reading is normally put formally and agreed. It is possible to put down a non-fatal amendment (that is, one that would not actually kill the Bill), for example to delay it for further amendments to be considered, but that is rare.
As soon as the motion for Third Reading is agreed, amendments may then be moved (something not possible in the Commons). These are normally for the purpose of clarifying any remaining uncertainties, tidying up the Bill, or giving the Government an opportunity to fulfil undertakings given at an earlier stage of the Bill. Once the amendments are dealt with, the motion ‘That the Bill do now pass’ is put. This is the final stage of the Bill and the motion may give rise to debate and may be the subject of a vote. The usual practice is for it to be moved formally and not debated.
Proceedings once a Bill reaches Third Reading in the Lords may thus take up little time if no amendments are tabled. It is not unusual to have amendments, but at this stage most matters have been resolved.
Lord Norton
A very informative and helpful guide to 3rd reading procedures. Thank you for taking the time to explain matters with such clarity!
Many thanks.
In response to the LGBTory poster on Twitter? (!)
But seriously, insightful once again for us procedural fanboys and girls. Do you expect an “ambush” by bill opponents tomorrow on the passage motion or do you think they have given up?
H. W. Davies: It was indeed prompted by the fact that interest in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was accompanied by a lack of understanding of procedure in the Commons. As you will now know, the normal practices were maintained at Third Reading and on the motion ‘That the Bill do now Pass’.
I may also do a post shortly on commencement orders. When a measure receives Royal Assent, its provisions do not take effect once Assent is given, unless the Act so specifies. With the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, its principal provisions are not yet in force.
On the SSM Bill: supporters of the bill have relied upon the fact that other countries (states) have changed their marriage laws to allow same sex marriage.
A point of clarification is needed: these countries have written (or codified) constitutions where marriage is not declared or prescribed specifically to be monogamous. They cannot use as a basis in law any argument on historic precedent regarding monogamy.
They have thus redefined marriage as polygamous by legally allowing three in a bed without adultery applying. Sexual orientation is redundant as both heterosexual and homosexuals are allowed to share the same bed.
We on the other hand CAN use historic precedent as a basis in constitutional law because our constitution is unwritten.
The SSM bill has undergone committee and other scrutiny in both houses and the bill still allows three in a bed on the same basis as those countries with codified constitutions.
The constitutional position is that whilst our marriage laws have been changed on a number of occasions by Parliament there has been a consistent adherence to monogamy whenever changes have taken place.
The government can now bypass the constitution because of the removal of the Lord Chancellor and Law Lords leaving no facility within a sovereign Parliament to formally interpret the constitution.
Royal Consent to this bill was granted on the basis that marriage would remain monogamous. Clearly, it hasn’t.
Given we are faced with extraordinary circumstances should the executive now ask the Head of State as a member of the executive to attend her HoL and clarify the constitutional position on marriage in her capacity as Lord Chancellor or will they wait to see whether Royal Assent is given or declined?
Senex: Your post is rather confused, since we still have a Lord Chancellor and the Supreme Court fulfils the same functions those previously fulfilled by the Law Lords. Nor is it true to say that the other nations that have introduced same-sex marriage have codified (‘written’) constitutions. Indeed, one could make the point that the introduction of same-sex marriage is more pronounced in nations with uncodified constitutions than in those with codified constitutions!
What is really and participatorily-democratically needed
to be not just ‘strengthened’ but brought into the lap of every-one
including those non-voting percentages
(what was it, 60% chose not to vote at some recent past general-election ?)
is preliminary Bill information-sharing, cooperative-discussion
and public-scrutiny,
of the ins, outs and substances of any Bill or other democratic matter/issue.
Building on Lord Hylton’s June 20 Blog on the SSC Bill.
The bill has received Royal Assent but stress testing is not yet complete. There exists a conflict of interest between the Queen as Regent and her role as Lord Chancellor.
As Lord Chancellor did she offer the Prime Minister the constitutional position on the bill only to see him offer her in return the same proposition Asquith offered George V. More likely, one or the other broached the subject of gay marriage and the Queen said she would give Royal Consent and guarantee Royal Assent if those conditions were met. With such an endorsement the cabinet would be able to put its full authority behind the bill.
The constitutional position however cannot be ignored.
A married hetero couple M and W are friends with a homo married couple MG and MD. W becomes suspicious that M is having a relationship with another and confronts M who says that he has formed a loving relationship with MD. W feels she is being neglected in the marriage and wishes to divorce M. Her lawyers advise that she may be entitled to half of M’s pension fund and estate.
Subsequently the relationship between M and W deteriorates and irretrievably breaks down with W wishing to divorce M citing adultery.
The matter goes to court: council for W argues that the law allows M as a hetero to commit adultery with MD. The judge interprets the SSC Act and decides W cannot cite adultery as the reason for the divorce because the law states that MD cannot commit adultery with M. The judge however says that the spirit of the law must also be taken into account and that marriage means monogamy.
The judge rules that M has taken a Common Law wife and the status of the marriage as such represents polygamy. The marriage is annulled and W looses everything. The law now allowing a homosexual third party into a heterosexual married relationship is unconstitutional?
The precedent was set by consort Queen Isabella of France. She is married to Edward II who has a homosexual relationship with the Earl of Cornwall one Piers Gaveston. In a media production of her book Dr Helen Castor reads from a translation of the Latin Chronicle:
“I feel that marriage is a union of a man and a women and someone has come between my husband and myself and is trying to break this bond. I declare I will not return until this intruder is removed.”
Gaveston is pursued by the nobility, tried and executed in 1312.
Ref: Latin Chronicle of Edward II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Edwardi_Secundi
DVD: SheWolves – Isabella & Margaret 18:25s
http://www.helencastor.com/radio-tv/4548525918
Ordinances: Grievances against Edward II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinances_of_1311
The wishes of the majority here in the UK, across Europe and in the United States are being brazenly ignored. Under a guise of more than half of the country is for it.
The country is not for it at all. It is dreaded and reviled, for, it, like the Queen Isabella, feels the act of marriage is specifically special between a man and a woman. There is no place for any other. It is as Senex reminds us, a monogamous institution. ‘Rejecting all others and keeping the self only for you.’ If this is to be acceptable, and becomes vogue, how will William or Harry ever know who fathered the child in their midst? Let alone Mr Average.
Now what I would like explained is, why are homosexuals and lesbians not wanting to enjoy monogamy in a marriage? Surely without this requirement, it is no longer what is regarded as union between two people. Whether heterosexual or otherwise. If they are so willing to allow infiltration on a sexual level between the partner and A Nother, why bother to marry? What is the meaning of marriage in this lunatic move? Have we completely lost the thrust of fidelity, which for good reason was and is expected. Venereal disease is rampant as it always has been and marriage helped to eliminate this a great deal. Now that health reason, along with the rest of them, is to be discarded. And this government tells us it is worried about the cost of the NHS.
We are being run by lunatics with absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. A clean sweep of the lot in both houses is a necessity if we are to stay safe from these blinkered imbeciles.
maude elwes: The survey data are remarkably clear and consistent, so much so that Lord Dear in his final speech conceded that the majority of people in the country support same-sex marriage. His point was that the majority in the Lords was even greater than the majority in the country. As the survey data make clear, same-sex marriage is supported overwhelmingly by young people and, indeed, by women.
Very few marriages nowadays are ended on grounds of adultery. If one partner in a same-sex marriage is unfaithful, the other would have grounds for divorce on the basis of unreasonable behaviour. There is a case for ensuring consistency and having one core ground for divorce.
@Lord Norton:
Whilst I accept what you write is what you personally believe, I simply cannot go along with your analogy. Firstly, had the government and Parliament believed what you have written, they would have called a referendum on it, for that would have been a coup. ‘Look how we have our finger on the pulse of the nation.’ And that is far from the truth.
And when discussion comes up on the matter, they run like the blazes when asked to put their money where their mouth is.
Then add to that, oddly, I have yet to find one person, young or old, who believes gay ‘marriage’ is right for this country. And I visit and am in touch with a wide spectrum.
I am putting up a link or two in order to highlight what I write. More important than this Spectator article is, the comments by our ordinary citizens at the bottom of it. You really do have to listen to the people and not the pollsters who work on the basis of give them what they want and they will come back for more.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2012/11/david-cameron-accused-of-misleading-party-and-public-over-gay-marriage-polling/
And here is a very interesting look at the entire scenario.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/12/11/comment-gay-marriage-has-its-queer-critics-too
And here we have a man of substance giving his views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9270941/Dr-John-Sentamu-gay-marriage-plans-are-for-emotional-need-not-righting-injustice.html
I believe very strongly that those in Parliament know full well this is not at all a change that the majority seek. What they are for is justice in respect of human beings not being outcasts or imprisoned for their sexual inclination. And for the Civil Partnership to give them equal rights to be acknowledged as partners for life. This does not include removing the status of a man and a woman to keep their marriage contract as special between two people of the opposite sex. Marriage between a man and a woman cannot be equal to same sex relationships because the entities within that partnership are different and not at all similar.
And, Lord Norton, though you may wish it wasn’t so it is so and will remain so, no matter how blinkered you wish the population to be. You are behind removing an important part of our social cohesion. Which should not be.
And lastly, Lord Tebbit and Nadine Dorres link.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100218015/a-response-to-lord-tebbit-on-the-subject-of-gay-marriage-and-lesbian-queens/
These people are traditional, loyal Conservatives. A party that doesn’t honour its grass roots, doesn’t deserve to keep them. As to hit them below the belt this way is betrayal of their principles and the principles of what their party led them to believe they stood for.
maude elwes: Talking to people and reading pieces that you agree with do not constitute public opinion. The opinion polls have been clear and consistent. There are no obvious grounds for holding a referendum. This is not a major constitutional issue – it is a matter of social policy – and if anything will help not undermine social cohesion.
This raises a number of questions:
Who is Chris Grayling?
How could the marriage be anulled in those circumstances?
Why wouldn’t W have cited unreasonable behaviour?
Lord Norton, I think that in your crucial democracy-facilitation position, you should not only have been charitable to both Senex’s and maude-elwes’s submissions, but should have called upon ‘outside and disinterested’ expert comment.