Sir, Ministers expect to use the Parliament Acts to achieve a ban on foxhunting by the middle of 2004 (letters, July 3). They really should not count their hounds before they have been caught.

Under the Parliament Act 1911 a Bill can be presented to the Queen for the Royal Assent if it has been passed by the House of Commons in three successive sessions and is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those sessions. If this is the law, the earliest date upon which a ban could be achieved would be in 2005.

Ministers argue that the three-session requirement was reduced to two sessions by the Parliament Act 1949, which purported to amend the 1911 Act. However, the House of Lords never consented to the 1949 Bill, which was presented for the Royal Assent in reliance upon the 1911 Act. The question of law which arises is whether the 1911 Act can be used to amend its own terms and so unilaterally enlarge the powers of the House of Commons.

The technical details of the argument which supports the view that this cannot be done were fully deployed on the second reading of the Parliament Acts (Amendment) Bill in the House of Lords on January 19, 2001. However, those who are not lawyers may be more impressed by the fact that, if the Government is right in it contentions, the House of Commons with its huge government majority can repeal the provision in the 1911 Act which prevents the Act being used unilaterally to extend the life of Parliament beyond five years. It could also effectively abolish the House of Lords’s power to delay legislation by further amending the 1911 Act to substitute one session for three.

Yours faithfully,
JOHN F. DONALDSON,
House of Lords.
July 3.

Explore Letters

• Feedback