Any MP is permitted under Standing Order No. 57 to introduce a bill of his or her choice, having given prior notice to the Public Bill Office. Presentation Bills are formally 'presented' during a Friday sitting, and only after all the Ballot Bills on the Order Paper have been presented.
Last updated: 4 May 2022 The MP presenting the bill does not give a speech and there is no debate on the proposals. There is no requirement for Presentation Bills to be printed - and they often are not - but they will not progress beyond Second Reading unless they are printed.
Presentation Bills can be used to address discrete, non-controversial policy issues and to resolve anomalies in the law. They can also be a useful means to keep an issue before the House that has perhaps been introduced previously under a different PMB procedure. However, with no speech or debate attached to them, they are less useful to Members than Ballot Bills or Ten Minute Rule Bills.
Presentation Bills rarely become law, although recent exceptions have been the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 (formerly the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.5) Bill) sponsored by Yvette Cooper MP and Lord Rooker; and the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (formerly the European Union (Withdrawal) (No.6) Bill) sponsored by Hilary Benn MP and again by Lord Rooker in the House of Lords. Both Bills were secured after MPs controversially seized control of the Order Paper from the government as part of a legislative strategy to avoid (or delay) a 'no-deal' exit from the European Union in the absence of the parliamentary support needed to ratify the draft Withdrawal Agreement.
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.
