Re: Lords Reject UK Fisheries Bill
Originally Posted by
Percy Vere
->
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.
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/