Talk:Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949

About.Com Article

So which came first, this article or the one at about.com which is exactly the same?

If you scroll to the bottom of that page you will see "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia" Dwyatt 101 08:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the House of Commons does not hold supremacy in the UK and certainly not within the Commonwealth or British Isles. From the two houses, the House of Lords is the highest house with the justices and magistrates power (with a greater power to create legislation through case law, than government.). All bills and acts must be accepted and ratified by the House of Lords. Further to this, is the supremacy of the constitutional documents, of which the parliament act or any act of parliament is certainly not one. It is my understanding that all acts of parliament exist in accordance with the signing of Magna Carta, secondly documents such as Magna Carta and British Law Land documents are all supreme sources of power in the British constitution which succeed the power of House of Commons. Further to this, the Protestant (not anglican) Church of England, with the supreme power to inaugurate a King/ Qu()een, is the supreme power awarding body as the nation is deemed by constitution to be given of the rights of God. Quite a lot of paper work to do and quite a few bodies to anull if you would like to make the house of commons supreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Referring to this document of the Government of the UK I doubt that the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913 has been introduced with a Parliament Act. Can somebody please check this issue and change the article if necessary? -- Umaluagr 12:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See page 9 of that document:

"The procedure prescribed by the Parliament Act 1911 was used in one other case, that of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill 1913."

That document is mentioned in the References section on the article page - it was a source for my additions on 16 September. (PS - it is helpful to sign and date comments by adding ~~~~ at the end. I've done it for you.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is basically correct. But it was no Parliament Act, because the bill received royal assent with the agreement of the Lords in the second session. In my opinion it is just a Parliament Act, when the bill passes through without the approval of the Lords.

Further on in this paragraph you can read: "All these Bills were rejected by the House of Lords in the first session, subsequently certified by the Speaker under the Parliament Acts and sent to the Lords, but then received Royal Assent in the final session with the agreement of the Lords as a result of compromise amendments." In this case the Temperance (Scotland) Act should be listed in the threats for a Parliament Act.

I am writing on the German article for the Parliament Act, so I am happy if you can give me some input on that issue, so that I can correct it there as well. --Umaluagr 10:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah - thanks for the further comment, which makes perfect sense. I have corrected the article to deal with my mistake (mis-reading that document, I thought the end of that paragraph referred only to the later two bills, not the earlier one too, but I see that I was wrong). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Invoking the Parliament Acts"

To talk about "invoking the Parliament Acts" may be a little misleading: it seems to imply the active taking of certain discretionary steps. However, section 2(1) of the Act, quoted on page 3 of SN/PC/675, makes it look like the operation is automatic (provided of course that all relevant conditions are met by the Bill), and that the Bill "shall ... be presented" for Royal Assent "unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary". So for a government to "threaten to use the Parliament Acts" means something like "we will not ask the Commons to direct to the contrary [and will oppose any such motion if proposed]". It is a subtle point, and I have not changed the article. I do not have access to the full text of the Acts. It would appear that the Speaker still has to certify the Bill: see the statement corresponding to footnote 13 on page 6 of SN/PC/675 and the bullet point corresponding to footnote 68 on page 16 of SN/PC/675. As with the certification of money bills, it is the Speaker and not the government who is invested with this particular power. The Speaker should, of course, himself be directed by the will of the House of Commons. -- G Colyer 19:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See the end of this BBC News story. -- G Colyer 20:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I too am unhappy about the usage "invoking the Parliament Acts". I have read through the text of the acts carefully and it is quite clear (they are remarkably clearly drafted) that the acts come into play automatically unless the Commons takes action to stop them doing so. This means that nobody really "invokes" the act, rather they refrain from stopping their effect. Francis Davey 01:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's very common usage, even if technically incorrect. Even if Wikipedia indicates that the usage is incorrect, we shouldn't pretend it never exists. Fwiw, my understanding was that The Speaker had to certify the Bill for Royal Assent (without the Lords' agreement), which would imply that nothing is automatic — there is a conscious decision on the part of The Speaker to do so, irrespective of whether he's only doing so "by the will of the Commons", n'est ce pas? — OwenBlacker 12:52, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

My interpretation (for what its worth -- but I am a practising barrister) of the Act is that the Speaker is bound to certify the bill as law if the preconditions are met. Not that it would be justiciable if he didn't. Francis Davey 01:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia need even indicate that the usage is incorrect, just avoid using it.

What is the procedure normally used to convey the Commons' approval prior to Royal Assent? Do all bills normally terminate their passage in the Lords, regardless of where they begin? This "certification" by the Speaker may (for all I know) be normal procedure. In any case, it is not the government that "invokes" the Parliament Acts even in this weak sense. G Colyer 19:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

German featured atricle

Outrageous! The equivalent page is is a featured article (Exzellente Artikel) in the German wikipedia! Look at their lovely diagrams! Something must be done... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1949 act

this article needs background on why it was needed then - and why it was then never used! Morwen - Talk 17:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is some good background discussion in the judgments of the High Court [1] and Court of Appeal [2] (which I have been reading on the train!). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

INteresting stuff. Have added some material from there. Morwen - Talk 09:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Salisbury convention

This article probably needs to mention the Salisbury convention, and whether the post-1949 acts were pushed through due to violations of this by the Lords. I believe fox hunting was in Labour's manifesto, dunno about the other stuff. Morwen - Talk 17:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of the Act

The article claims that the PM obtained the permission of the King to create new peers to force the bill through. However, the E2 writeup on this subject claims that merely the 'threat' of going to the king was enough to force it through. My friend's Law textbook (ISBN 0-406-95952-8) claims that the Edward VII and George V were reluctant to create new peers.

Does anyone have any reliable sources as to what exactly happened in this conflict? Fragglet 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Parliament Act challenge

I have removed the text:

The Countryside Commission and various individuals also brought legal actions on human rights grounds, that the Hunting Act was a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights, and under European Community law, that the Act infringed the rights to free movement of goods, workers and to provide and receive services.[3] These claims were dismissed by the Administrative Court (The Countryside Alliance and others v. H.M. Attorney General and others [2005] EWHC 1677 (Admin), 29 July 2005), but permission was granted for an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and an appeal is under way.

because it has nothing to do with the Parliament Act. Such information (apart from the reference to the non existent Countryside Commission) should be on the Hunting Act 2004 page. MikeHobday 14:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. You also removed the short discussion of the size of the panel in the HL decision - did you think it was not relevant either? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the section was over long and the detail too much for a relatively short, albeit important incident. Do you disagree? I don't feel strongly. MikeHobday 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Invalid?

"The consequences are unclear if the 1949 Act were to be ruled invalid. Certainly, the Hunting Act 2004 and the War Crimes Act 1991 would be then invalid."

Could someone explain why this is the case? If the monarch has given assent to the bill, does it manner that it was created in an inproper manner? If I don't get a reply, I think I'll remove the 'Certainly', and make the statement more uncertain. Dmn € Դմն 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly does matter. It is widely accepted that the Queen in Parliament is sovereign - that is, the Queen acting with the consent of both Houses of Parliament. The first Parliament Act provided a mechanism to pass Acts without the consent of the House of Lords (quite how this is rationalised in constitutional terms is a matter for debate - delegating power or redefining Parliament or whatever - IIRC, there is some interesting discussion of the effect of the Parliament Acts in the speeches delievered in the House of Lords). If the 1949 Act were held to be invalid, then it would be an easy matter to see that Acts passed in reliance upon its terms would be invalid too. Quite what it means for a purported Act of Parliament to be invalid is left as an exercise for the reader! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the House of Lords has ruled that the Act is valid, there seems little point in keeping the paragraphs about what would have happened if it was invalid. I presume that part was written before the final judgement was made, when the court case was still a current event. I'm going to levae this for a few days and then if no-one objects I'm going to remove it, as it seems to me that this kind of speculation is not encyclopedic (or at least not anymore). Richard75 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Done.Richard75 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"other types of bills"

I have a question on the content:

The Parliament Act 1911: "imposed a maximum legislative delay of one month for "money bills" (those dealing with taxation) and two years for other types of bill" ; and

The Parliament Act 1949: "Parliament Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 103), which further limited the power of the Lords by reducing the time that they could delay bills, from two years to one<--- Which "bill" does it refer to? the "money bills" or "other types of bills" (as stated in the Parliament Act 1911)?

I would be grateful for your answer. scarlett_tong 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1949 Act decreased the time that the Lords could delay non-money bills from 2 years to 1 year by amending section 2 of the 1911 Act. The provisions relating to money bills in section 1 were left the same. See the text of the [amended] Act here - the amendments are in [square brackets]. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed thye following text:

However, the Liberal government did not follow through with reform of the House of Lords, and the composition of the Lords remained much the same for another 50 years, until life peers were introduced in 1958. Despite further calls for change, the position remained the same until the Labour government elected in 1997 took the first steps to reform the Lords. The House of Lords Act 1999 reduced the number of hereditary peers entitled to attend and vote in the Lords; however, as of 2006, there are no directly-elected members of the second chamber. However, the small number of remaining hereditary peers were elected by a vote of all the hereditary peers in the lead up to the reform (including those who were to lose their seats).

because it doe snot belong as "background to the 1911 Act. Some of it may well belong elsewhere in the article. MikeHobday 08:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

References

A question

If House of Commons enactes a bill to abolish the House of Lords, can House of Commons use the Parliament Acts to bypass Lords' veto ?

Siyac 13:02, 23 Jan 2007 (UTC)

Yes. MikeHobday 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Parliament Acts and constitutional change

One concern I have about the Parliament Acts is this: although the 1911 Act takes a self-denying ordnance on extending the life of a parliament, it says nothing about entrenching this safeguard.

The limit on the life of a parliament (and government) is set at five years by the Septennial Act 1715 (as amended by the 1911 Act). Section 2(1) of the 1911 Act forbids its use on any Bill intended to extend this limit, But it would be quite possible, following the precedent of the 1949 Act, for a government to stay in power indefinitely first by re-wording s. 2(1) appropriately, leaving it free to set up a dictatorship. In other words, any government since 1911 could, in theory, have passed, say, an Emergency Powers Act of Self-Perpetuation.

Do contributors believe that this point is made strongly enough on the article? Steve-o 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too theoretical to need space in the article. It might make an interesting footnote if you have a reliable third-party source that makes the same supposition. (Anyway, there's bound to be an alternative method laying around to subvert the intent of the law: an Order-in-Council or something equally undemocratic) Yomangani^talk 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion on this very point in the court decisions in the Jackson case following the enactment of the Hunting Act 2004 (follow the links to the decisions of the High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords for further edification). There was some discussion of whether the Act could be construed as including an implied restriction preventing the Act from being used to amend itself to remove that sort of safeguard (although that is precisely what happened with the 1949 Act, together with special tweaking of the "sessions" of Parliament to ensure the provisions of the 1911 Act were met) or to make other wide-ranging changes to the British constitution. Typically, the courts refused to give a definitive answer to this question, as it was not necessary for the case before them. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Septennial Act and general elections

I wanted to explain a minor amendment I made to the first section. Technically, the Septennial Act never set a maximum time between general elections. Indeed, the general election of May 1997 was more than five years after the one of April 1992. What the legislation does is mandate that any Parliament will automatically dissolve the day after the fifth anniversary of the day it was first called. In practice, each Parliament is called within a few days of being elected and a new election is called immediately on Parliament being dissolved (and the campaign is usually just a few weeks), this sets the maximum time between elections as just over five years (as with the 1992 Parliament), but this is not statutory. The Triennial Act means that a new Parliament must be called within three years of the old one being dissolved, not the few weeks that is normal these days. Of course, a government that did not call an election when Parliament was dissolved would not be able to legislate, and its right to levy taxes would lapse within a year. Qlangley (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

The title of this page

I think that this page should be moved to Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 (currently a redirect) since that is the correct collective title of these two Acts and avoids confusion with the new article Parliament Act (this is a list) and with other "Parliament Acts", such as the Parliament Act 1660. James500 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 are now articles. James500 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone raises an objection to this, I intend to effect the page move described above in the immediate future. James500 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This page move has now been effected. This page was formerly at Parliament Acts. James500 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

paying Mps

The provision for paying Members of parliament was long awaited and fought for. I have mentioned this. Previous tothis act, fundamentally only people who had money could become Mps! Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to delete the following passage as I can find no reference to this in the actual text of the Act. Whoever wrote this must have gotten confused with another statute:

It also provided for Members of Parliament (excluding government ministers) to be paid £400 per year. The payment of MPs had been a demand of radical democratic movements since at least the 1830s.

References

Suggested merge of 1911 and 1949 articles to here

I'd like to suggest that we merge Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 into Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Both the 1911 and 1949 articles have very little content - mostly an infobox, links to the full text, and a link to this excellent article - which could be moved here without too much trouble. The pages are essentially redirects where you have to find and click the link here (also making this page harder to find), when it merging them here would mean we could send people to this page directly. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support, on the proviso that the 1911 and 1949 articles redirect to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.231.37 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment When I created these articles I had it in mind to move the material that was only relevant to one Act and not the other (e.g. the history of the passage of the 1911 Act) to relevant article. I thought it would lead to clearer presentation and I thought that if a blow by blow account of the provisions of each of these Acts was given, this article might become rather long. I did not actually get round to this. I think that there is some material in each article that is not reproduced in this article. If you really want to merge them you will have to make sure that it is reproduced. James500 (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

didn't seem to be consensus to merge, remove tag, Tom B (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Alternative proposal Split this page in two.James500 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article isn't totally correct. It represents one view. But there are others, held by people who are acknowledged experts in the field. The one held by Albert Venn Dicey, in the edition of Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution that was published after the 1911 Act is:

Hence, on the whole, the correct legal statement of the actual condition of things is that sovereignty still resides in Parliament, i.e. in the King and the two Houses acting together, but that the Parliament Act has greatly increased the share of sovereignty possessed by the House of Commons and has greatly diminished the share thereof belonging to the House of Lords.

— Albert Venn Dicey (1915). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th ed.). London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.

On other words, it is incorrect and inaccurate to say, as this article states, that Parliament delegated anything at all. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see any way in which that section of the article is inaccurate. In particular it does not represent any particular view as being correct, though it does report the decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction to decide whether the 1949 Act was valid (on which Dicey had no view of course). In what way do you think Dicey's view is contradicted by the article? Francis Davey (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In the way explicitly stated above. This article presents only one view. That's not the view held by all scholars, and one very prominent scholar in the field of U.K. constitutional law in particular does not hold the view presented by this article, and quite clearly contradicts the statement that the 1911 Act delegated power solely to the Commons, or indeed delegated anything at all. Heck, even the sources that are already cited here state that there's no delegation going on. Yet we have an article that nowhere states the widespread view, held by many scholars, that Donaldson's/Wade's idea of delegation is, quite simply, a mistaken one; but rather we have an article that incorrectly presents Donaldson's/Wade's ideas as the primary mainstream views, and merely goes on to say that attempts to correct the flaws, that those views imply, have failed. That's a woefully incomplete and inaccurate portayal of scholarship on this subject. The mainstream view is in fact that these purported problems don't actually exist as claimed. What this article is presenting as legal scholarship on this matter is in fact an over-amplified minority viewpoint.

    By the way, you'll also find that the mainstream view, even nowadays, is that there are no "courts of competent jurisdiction" that you refer to. So your argument that "courts of competent jurisdiction" have demonstrated something has improper foundation. The courts will not go "beyond the parliamentary roll" in deciding what is and isn't an Act of Parliament. This is the view that was held by Dicey, and it is the view still held today by the mainstream. It is still the widely accepted principle in mainstream scholarship and legal opinion that the courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the procedures of Parliament. Lord Denning tried to assert otherwise (in the Court of Appeal), but he, too, failed to change established legal doctrine on this. Uncle G (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

    • I don't read it that way. As I read it the article states that some legal academics have raised objections, one of which is the delegation theory. There's no assertion that this is a widespread or mainstream view or even a credible one. That Lord Donaldson wanted to put the matter beyond doubt by legislation doesn't mean that the delegation theory is widespread or widely accepted. One edit that would be OK would be to say "some legal academics" rather than "legal academics". I think the "some" is understood, but no harm spelling it out - I'll make that change. Unless you have a good survey article you can cite, there would be no basis for stating that this was not a widespread view. However it would be perfectly legitimate to make an edit to the effect that other lawyers have taken a different view of the effect of the 1911 Act and Dicey's view is certainly notable.

What you are complaining about is a lack of balance not a lack of accuracy. Nothing in that section (as far as I can see) is untrue but it may be that it does not include all relevant information. In that case be bold and edit some in. Francis Davey (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured article status

I nominated this article for a featured article review overlooking the usual talk page period because of what I considered to be very significant failings in the article against what are stringent standards. This omission has been challenged, and although I believe that it should be omitted because of the blatant failings of the article, I would like to outline the objections here (as would be proper procedure) so if any editor is able to being the article up to the required standard, they can:

• On 1a): well written. My prose has come under fire before, so I'm not the best judge, but I think the prose could be improved considerably. The are for example, vague terms and sentences like "the Conservative opposition, many of whom were large landowners themselves" and "hundreds of new Liberal peers". Sentences like "One of the reasons for the Irish Parliamentary Party MPs' support for the Parliament Act, and the bitterness of the Unionist resistance, was that the loss of the Lords' veto would make possible Irish Home Rule (i.e. a devolved legislature)." lack clarity and a clear understanding.
• On 1b) Comprehensive. I do not believe that the subjects as covered in enough depth. As two of the most important documents in British parliamentary history, there is a lack of thorough discussion of what was being brought it, how, the audience, critical reception (in the press, for example) and only a thin discussion present of the effects of the act on future events. Whilst this sort of detail would be suitable for a GA (perhaps) it is not comprehensive. The 1949 act is given one paragraph where I believe it is possible to write an entire article on it (which I hopefully will do).
• On 1c) well researched. There are large areas left unreferenced, and the sources used are mixed, with some (eg. "Epolitix.com") not appropriately scholarly.
• On 1d) neutral. Quite possibly. It's hard to form and opinion without a thorough text. For example, the weight given to Labour's plans in the 1997-2010 period may or nay not be justified.
• On 2a) The lead. Not a poor representation, by any means; I don't think it's the main problem with the article. The weight on the 2004/5 events seems disproportionate, however.
• On 2b) Layout. I'm not sure whether this is included under 2b, but I think the use of bullet points in the text could be improved with prose.
• On 2c) citation style. Some of it could be improved, with different date styles and ways of referencing web pages used in the notes, as well as being a mix of 'notes' and 'citations'. Overall they use ref tags rather than inline bracketed forms, but are not in teh thorough style (ISBNs, dates, publisher info, that sort of thing) that are required by FA reviewers, if not by the criteria per se.

These are the main points. I wanted to be thorough because of what I see as the magnitude of the problem. I'd really like this article to be an FA and I appreciate the time editors have put in, it's just not there. It was passed as an FA in looser times, and fells well short of the standards expected of FAs. I think it's currently around a 'B', with a GA nomination possible with some work. I hope to find the time to improve it and that's part of the reason I'm sorry I've had to lay everything out here. I hope very much that these things will not be true of the article in the future. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

second sentence exceedingly awkward

The second sentence of this article is exceedingly awkward. It reads:

"It is provided that they are to be construed as though they were a single Act."

This construction is passive voice (what provides this?) and is unnecessarily wordy besides.

I suggested changing the sentence to:

"The 1949 Act provides that the two laws are to be construed as a single Act."

Apparently my use of the term "law" was objectionable (I was trying to avoid using "Act" three times in the same sentence). Also, the reverter commented, "being construed as one Act isn't the same thing as being a single Act." But I fail to see how the modification from "construed as though they were a single Act" to "construed as a single Act" takes anything out of the sentence.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject matter can fix this issue. It's a glaring problem for a supposedly featured article's opening paragraph. AgnosticAphid talk 18:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence is not exceedingly awkward or glaring problem. There are much worse parts of this article than that sentence. As to your question, I would have thought that someone could figure out "what provides this" by looking at the footnote, as you did.

I am going to change the sentence to "section 2(2) of the Parliament Act 1949 provides that that Act and the Parliament Act 1911 are to be construed as one" which should be beyond argument. James500 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925213950/http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page140.asp to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page140.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930235610/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=46&item=history to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=46&item=history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023520/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtholref/17/1710.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtholref/17/1710.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050415132644/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbills/126/2000126.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbills/126/2000126.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Duff references for over 12 years.

Ref name "AB2R" is defined as "House of Lords Hansard for 19 January 2001 (pt 1)". The Stationery Office. 19 January 2001. Retrieved 9 October 2006. and as "House of Lords Hansard for 16 January 2002". The Stationery Office. 16 January 2002. Retrieved 9 October 2006., and is called in two other places with no indication of which version is intended. This error has existed since the 9th of October 2006. The editor who introduced the error has not edited Wikipedia for over 6 months. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, after close perusal of too many diffs to mention, I have been able to correct the error. We should all be ashamed that such an error should have persisted for so long. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)