Parliamentary Law Making: Advantages and Disadvantages

The legislative process is very thorough, passing through various stages and individuals before it can become law. There are three readings and two stages in both Houses. This provides several opportunities for debate and amendment, ensuring that any mistakes and poor drafting can be corrected. 

There are several types of bill which can be introduced in either House. This means that not one Government but all MPs and Lords have the opportunity to propose new laws. This is useful when the Government have not given much thought to a particular matter, or does not want to be behind controversial legislation, such as the Abortion Act 1967. 

The House of Lords serves as a checking mechanism. It can prevent acts being passed solely to coincide with the Government's political agenda. If the House of Lords exercises its power to delay, there will be further time to debate and make amendments. 

Members of the Lords are also able to act independently when debating and voting. MPs often have to follow instructions of their party leaders.

Neither the House of Lords nor the Queen is democratically elected. Arguably, for this reason, the House of Lords should not be able to delay bills that have been approved by the democratically elected Commons.

However, while the Commons has been democratically elected, so should reflect the views of the public, MPs are persuaded to vote with their party, rather than in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. 

As the Government has the majority of the MPs in the House of Commons, it can easily vote out any Private Members' bills which are not in line with their political ideology. Very few Private Members' bills are enacted each year, as Government prioritise their own bills and allocate the most debate time to their own bills. In the 09/10 parliamentary session, only five Private Members' bills made it into the statute book.

When drafting a bill, parliamentary draftsmen use words and phrases which are ambiguous, unclear and obscure. This means it's up to the judiciary to decide what the Act says. Approximately 75% of cases heard by the Supreme Court in relation to how an Act should read.