At the start of each new parliamentary Session, a PMB ballot is held in the House of Lords. This ballot determines the order in which PMBs will receive their First Reading and on what days. Once all the Ballot Bills have been introduced, a Peer can introduce a PMB on any sitting day. There is no fixed time for consideration of PMBs although generally they are considered on sitting Fridays.
At the start of each new parliamentary Session, on the day following the State Opening of Parliament, a PMB ballot is held in the House of Lords. This ballot determines the order in which PMBs will receive their First Reading in the House of Lords, and on what days.
A Peer who wishes to enter the PMB ballot must submit the full text of their bill to the Public Bill Office (this is in contrast to MPs, who do not even need to provide a title for a bill when they enter the Commons PMB ballot). The bill must be submitted by the time the House rises after State Opening, on the evening before the ballot.
The legislative time secured by the Peer must be used only for the bill they have submitted in the ballot; they cannot change their mind and seek to introduce another bill, nor can they transfer their slot to another Member. A Peer can submit only one bill in the ballot, and duplicate or substantially similar bills submitted by more than one member are not permitted. If a Peer fails to introduce his or her PMB in his or her allocated slot then the bill cannot be introduced at a later date until all other Lords Ballot Bills have been introduced.
Once all the Ballot Bills have been introduced, a Peer can introduce a PMB on any sitting day. However, there is no fixed time in the House of Lords for consideration of PMBs.
In practice, a PMB at a stage when no amendments or debate are anticipated may be taken after questions on any sitting day of the week. Otherwise PMBs are generally considered on sitting Fridays.
The availability of time is dependent on the weight of other business. Peers are advised to introduce PMBs at the beginning of the parliamentary session to improve their chances of securing debating time.
Generally, and unlike in the Commons, PMBs are not talked out in the House of Lords.
PMBs in the Lords proceed in the same way as government bills and, if passed, are sent to the Commons where they must be taken up by an MP. They are then treated as any other PMB and must pass all the Commons stages. If any amendments are made, the bill must go back to the Lords.
The legislative process in the Lords for PMBs is relatively straightforward compared to that in the Commons. However, Lords bills often fail to secure time to be considered in the Commons as they arrive late in the session and find themselves placed behind PMBs initiated in the Commons.
In procedural terms there are only two difference between a bill introduced in the Lords by a government minister and one introduced by backbenchers:
PMBs cannot be carried over from one session to another; and
a statement on human rights compatibility is not required.
Explanatory Notes are sometimes produced by the sponsoring Member (sometimes with the help of the relevant government department) to facilitate understanding of the provisions of a PMB but they are not required. Any Explanatory Notes that are produced must be checked by the Public Bill Office in the House of Lords prior to publication.
The Peer presenting the PMB (or their representative if the sponsoring Member is unable to be present) rises at the start of public business, usually after oral questions, on the day allocated to them through the ballot, and seeks the House's permission to introduce the bill. This stage is usually a formality and the bill's introduction is agreed without debate or objection.
The sponsoring Peer is then responsible for negotiating with the Government Whips Office to secure a Second Reading date for the PMB as well as dates for any further stages.
At this stage Peers consider the general principles of the bill. The sponsoring Member opens the debate, the Minister responds and the sponsoring Member has a brief right of reply.
The bill may be opposed if a Peer has given notice on the Order Paper of:
an amendment that "this House declines to give the bill a second reading";
the above amendment augmented by a reason that the bill is being opposed (a 'reasoned amendment')
an amendment which would not seek to prevent the bill's progress but would invite the House to set out a particular point of view or highlight a concern about the provisions.
In practice, it is unusual for the House to divide on a PMB at Second Reading. If a vote does take place then the sponsoring Member must nominate two tellers within three minutes of the division being called. (They will also have to do this for any divisions at subsequent stages).
As with Second Reading the dates for each of these stages are fixed by agreement between the sponsoring Member and the Government Whips Office.
If a bill passes Second Reading, a motion will be moved in the name of the sponsoring Peer to commit it to either a Committee of the Whole House or a Grand Committee.
Amendments may be moved at Committee stage, at Report stage, and, unlike in the Commons, amendments are also permitted at Third Reading in the Lords.
If there are lots of amendments then the Government Whips Office will help the sponsoring Member to prepare groupings for debate. However, a member who has tabled an amendment must also agree to the grouping.
Once a Lords PMB navigates Third Reading it is sent to the House of Commons where it must be adopted by an MP. In the Commons a Lords PMB is treated as any other PMB and must pass all its Commons stages.
If any amendments are made, the PMB must go back to the Lords for further consideration. Only when any amendments are agreed by both Houses can the bill be granted Royal Assent.
Uncontroversial proposals that have been scrutinised and achieved consensus in the Lords may have some chance of being carried through 'on the nod' in the Commons.
Hansard Society (2022), Guide to Private Members' Bills, (Hansard Society: London)
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
