Opposition. What does a Standing Committee do? A Standing Committee assesses and approves each clause of a bill.

It does not discuss the overall purpose of a bill. Each member of a Standing Committee is allowed to propose an amendment to clauses in the bill. The government does not have to accept amendments, and despite the input of a Standing Committee, a bill, after the Committee Stage may be the same as at the time of the Second Reading. Governments with a large parliamentary majority and with a disciplined Whip structure, can all but guarantee that its bill will be voted for. However, a government may well accept amendments to a bill simply because a Standing Committee may have suggested an improvement that the government simply did not see. The power to do this rests with the government and not with the Standing Committee. Some have argued that this government power makes a Standing Committee and its work redundant. However, this procedure is a fundamental part of the parliamentary set-up and is seen as part of the whole democratic structure of Parliament and an insurance against governments doing what they want to do. Standing Committees act as a reservoir of expertise than can be used constructively by a government if only that it can discuss in clinical detail a bill and suggest changes that, according to the Committee, will enhance the bill. A government might accept minor changes to a bill. Major changes are a different matter. These might only be forced on a government if sufficient government backbenchers combine with the Opposition. In this scenario, the government might be faced with the embarrassment of its bill being defeated in the House. This would clearly undermine its authority. With the current huge parliamentary majority of the Blair government in 2003, this is extremely unlikely to occur. On rare occasions, the Standing Committee stage might be expanded. This is done when this examination of a bill is taken on the floor. This is when a Committee of the Whole House is convened to give all MPs the opportunity to express their views on a bill. This happens rarely as it is a time-consuming process. Major finance bill and proposed constitutional changes have led to Committees of the Whole House being instigated in the past. The whole committee stage is meant to be a thorough examination of a bill and it is the longest part of the process. Once it has ended, the process moves on to the Report Stage. This stage is also known as The Consideration. This is a detailed examination of the bill by all MPs, including amendments if they have been suggested at the

Committee stage. New amendments can be introduced at this stage. This is usually done by the government in response to amendments suggested at the Committee stage. By doing this, the government can claim to have listened to the proposed amendments to a bill. It can also claim to still be in charge of the bill as it has proposed the amendments! The Report Stage can last from 30 minutes to several days. From here, the bill returns for its Third Reading. The Third Reading is the final part of the debate regarding the bill within the House of Commons. MPs discuss the overall content of the amended bill. From here the bill automatically moves onto the House of Lords. Under its current structure, the Lords operate in broadly the same way as the House of Commons. The First Reading in the Lords is, as in the Commons, a formal introduction. A major debate on the bill occurs at the Second Reading. The Lords continue to follow the pattern of the Commons with a Committee Stage, followed by the Report Stage and then a concluding Third Reading. However, though there are many similarities in the way both Houses proceed with regards to the way bills are passed, there are also a number of important differences. The Lords Committee Stage is usually held on the floor of the Lords itself. In this way, any peer may put forward amendments and comment about the bill. Amendments can be made in the Lords at the Third Reading. This is usually done to clarify any amendments the government has agreed to make to its bill. If the bill is voted for in the Lords, it is immediately sent for Royal Assent. However, if any amendments have been made in the Lords, the bill is returned to the Commons which debates each amendment the Lords have made. The Commons can: Accept the amendment Amend the Lords amendment Completely replace a Lords amendment with one of its own Reject a Lords amendment. If any of the last three are done in the Commons, the bill returns to the Lords with an explanation as to why the government has taken the course of action it has. This is a statement of reasons. The Lords can accept this and pass the bill. However, it can also reject the statement of reasons. When this happens, the amendments concerned (and therefore the bill itself) goes to and from the Commons and Lords until an acceptable compromise is reached. If both Houses fail to agree on their differences, the bill dies. This is an extremely rare event and has only happened on very infrequent occasions since 1945. There are two major restrictions on the Lords ability to kill of a bill.

1) The Lords may not delay a bill for more than one parliamentary session. A bill lost in the Lords in one session but then passed by the Commons in the next parliamentary session, would automatically receive the Royal Assent regardless of whether the Lords opposed it in that session. 2) The Lords does not deal with any "Money Bills". These pass through the Lords without discussion. This theoretical ability of the Lords to kill off a bill or even to hinder its passing has highlighted a major constitutional issue. To some, the Lords acts as an insurance against an over-dominant government based in the Commons. Those in the Lords are usually older than MPs and have the worldly experience (usually of politics) to make a positive input into the making and creating of new laws. Their experience is usually greater than the majority of MPs in the Commons and their perceived wisdom is a much-needed stabilising factor in British politics. To others, the Lords are an unelected and, therefore, an undemocratic relic from another time that undermine the whole concept of representative democracy. If an elected government, so the argument goes, decides to pursue a certain policy, an electoral victory gives it the right to do so and the Lords have no right to interfere in this process. The current projected reform of the Lords is still being considered. In February 2003, Tony Blair argued that a fully appointed Lords would allow a cross-section of experts to be appointed to the second chamber. Such experts would offer a serious scrutiny of government bills and society as a whole would only benefit from this. This approach has been soundly criticised by many who argue that an appointed Lords would simply pass whatever the government wanted to be passed and would offer no scrutiny whatsoever to government bills. One of the major critics of an appointed Lords was the then Leader of the House, Robin Cook, a member of the Cabinet, who was to resign over the government's decision to attack Iraq. After the First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage and Third Reading in the Commons and the input by the Lords, a bill (if it has passed through all the stages) is ready for the Royal Assent. In this process, the monarch formally signifies assent to the bill so that it becomes an act and part of the law of the land. The Queen uses Norman French as part of tradition "La Reyne le veult" ("The Queen wishes it"). The last time the monarch refused to give Royal Assent was in 1707 with Queen Anne. It is all but impossible to imagine a situation whereby the Queen would refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill that has gone through such a thorough examination. Such a refusal would spark off a major constitutional crisis.

An act usually has a date or dates in its text as to when it will be implemented (or when parts of it will be implemented if it is a multi-layered act). Some acts have a Commencement Order in them to activate it, or parts of it. The implementation of that act means that it is part of the law of the land from that date