Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

Last year they had to travel to the north, remember?

But before royal assent there is consideration of amendments.

When a Bill has passed through third reading in both Houses it is returned to the first House (where it started) for the second House's amendments (proposals for change) to be considered.

Both Houses must agree on the exact wording of the Bill.

There is no set time period between the third reading of a Bill and consideration of any Commons or Lords amendments.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

First of all, last year Her Majesty was at Balmoral in Scotland, which is why JRM had to travel there for her signature. You fail to say that she could quite easily have been at Buck House, Windsor or Sandringham for that matter - it was just a matter of timing where she was.

Secondly, if the Government wanted to, and I'm not saying it will, it could forget all about the Lords' amendments and send the bill direct for Royal Ascent. However, the HoL have come up with some good ideas for a change that deserve looking at by the HoC in my opinion.

As for setting aside time to debate this Bill, it's just a matter of having a chat with the Speaker's Office to reschedule the Parliamentary timetable.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

I just pointed out that royal assent may take longer than the few hours bread mentioned.

You forget the fisheries bill started in the house of lords.
I won't make you ask why that matters.
When a bill has passed through third reading in both Houses it is returned to the first House (where it started) for any amendments made by the second House to be considered. The fisheries bill returns to the house of lords where the amendment from HoC will be considered.
If the Commons makes amendments to the bill, the Lords must consider them and either agree or disagree to the amendments or make alternative proposals.

If the Lords disagrees with any Commons amendments, or makes alternative proposals, then the bill is sent back to the Commons.

A bill may go back and forth between each House until both Houses reach agreement on the exact wording of the bill – this is known as ‘ping pong’.

When the exact wording has been agreed by the Commons and the Lords, the bill is ready for royal assent.
In exceptional cases, when the two Houses do not reach agreement, the bill falls.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/...of-amendments/

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

I suspect you watched the same TV series as I did about the workings of Parliament and the HoL so we'll leave it there. Although one thing you omitted from your post was to say that this Bill is JOINTLY sponsored by Lord Gardiner of Kimble and George Eustice both of whom were in DeFRA (Mr Eustice is now Environment Secretary) so, if anything, it's a joint effort.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

No, I just read what your government puts on it's site.
The mention of george eustice plus lord gardiner of kimble is because this bill started it's life in the previous parliament in 2018. In december, before elections, the bill was carried over by motion to the next session, with the new parliament.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

During one of these debates, lord gardiner of kimble promised the house to inform them on a number of subjects by lettre. In his lettre of 25 februari 2020 (you may find it here: https://services.parliament.uk/Bills...documents.html ) the lord stated the text I show below. It is rather interesting, especially the part starting with the sentence: "as stated in the fisheries white paper".

Do you, or bread or swim, have an explanation for this?

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

I'm afraid you're wrong again. The first Bill fell when Boris called the General Election last December. What is going through Parliament now is a new Bill.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

The bill fell after prorogation, boris election was not the demarking date, sorry, wrong again.

What laws have been lost after Parliament's suspension?

Only three pieces of legislation were carried over, meaning laws setting up post-Brexit arrangements for immigration, fishing, trade and agriculture as well as bills reforming divorce law, introducing tougher sentencing for animal cruelty and protecting public toilets all fell.

The bills can be re-introduced after Parliament returns on 14 October if the government chooses to do so but all progress made is lost and MPs and peers must start their scrutiny from scratch.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49655201

The fisheries bill (the same bill, other years because of elapsed time) was reintroduced in the house of lords.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

After cooling down after you read my post, have you any explanation for the text stating the government has no intention of changing the quota system? Post 86.

Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill

You thought I was angry because I needed to cool down? What a laugh. You haven't, nor never will, see me angry.

As for the document you attached, I have no definitive answer but I do have an opinion. Do you want to read it?

Oh, and BTW, yes, you were right, it was prorogation that caused the fisheries bill to fall not the dissolution of Parliament. Mea culpa.