A second reading is the first opportunity for parliamentarians to debate the main principles of a proposed law (a bill). It is the first significant hurdle a bill must clear to proceed on its legislative journey.
The debate takes place on the general merits of the Bill, rather than its detailed, clause-by-clause content. At the end of the debate, the House votes on the motion “That the bill be now read a second time.”
If this motion is passed, the House has formally given its approval to the principles of the bill, which then proceeds to the next stage (committee stage) for detailed scrutiny.
Report stage is a feature of the legislative process in both the commons and the House of Lords.
When does second reading happen?
The second reading of a bill takes place after its first reading (its formal introduction).
There is a convention that the second reading debate will not usually take place until two weekends have passed following the publication of the bill.
What happens during a bill’s second reading debate?
A second reading debate is a major event in the life of a government bill and will typically take up a full afternoon’s business in the main commons chamber.
The debate is opened by the government minister responsible for the bill (or MP responsible for the bill if it is a Private Member’s Bill). In their opening speech, the minister will outline the purpose of the legislation, explain what it is trying to achieve and make the case for why it is necessary.
The minister’s speech is followed immediately by a response from their counterpart in the official opposition, the relevant shadow minister. They will set out their party’s position on the bill, highlighting any areas of support or opposition. Spokespeople for the other main opposition parties will also be called to speak early in the debate.
NNo amendments can be made to the text of the bill at this stage.
Following the opening speeches from the frontbenches, the commons speaker will call backbench MPs from all sides of the House to contribute to the debate.
A spokesperson for the official opposition and then a minister make closing or “winding up” speeches.
Opposing a bill at second reading
If the opposition or another group of MPs wishes to oppose a bill and prevent it from progressing, they can table a “reasoned amendment.”
This is an amendment to the main motion which sets out the specific reasons for opposing the bill. The wording typically calls for all the words on the main question after the word “That” to be left out and for other words specifying the nature of their objection to be added. The reasoned amendment must specifically object to the “principles” behind the legislation.
The opposition may also not vote against second reading but retain major reservations about specific parts of the bill, which they will voice in later stages.
At the end of the debate, the House first votes on the reasoned amendment. If this amendment is defeated – as is almost always the case for a government bill, given the government’s majority – the House then immediately votes on the main motion.
If a bill fails to receive a second reading, it can progress no further. Commons rules means the government is prohibited from introducing a bill in “substantially the same terms” in the same session.
A defeat for the government on a second reading vote is exceptionally rare. It is generally assumed that a government should be able to achieve a majority for the principles behind a specific bill, even if backbenchers quibble with the clause-by-clause details.
What happens after second reading? Financial resolutions and programming
If a bill requires new public spending or involves changes to taxation, the House must also pass specific resolutions to authorise these financial provisions. These are typically dealt with immediately after the main second reading vote has passed.
A money resolution is required to authorise any new government spending contained in the bill, which has not been previously authorised by an act of parliament.
A ways and means resolution is required to authorise any new or increased taxes or charges on the public contained in the bill.
If it is a government bill, a minister will move a programme motion, usually including provisions for committal of a bill (normally to a public bill committee), determining the date by which the public bill committee must report and specifying the number of days set aside in the House for remaining stages. Only government bills may be “programmed”, and almost all such bills are programmed.
The government may also pass a “carry over motion” if they expect the bill will need to be carried over into a future parliamentary session. This prevents the bill from “falling” if the current parliamentary session is coming to an end.
What is the next stage in the legislative process?
Once a bill has successfully passed its second reading and any necessary financial resolutions have been agreed, it moves to the committee stage.
This is where the Bill is scrutinised in detail, line by line and clause by clause, usually in a smaller Public Bill Committee.
Thatcher defeated at second reading: Shops Bill rebellion (1986)
On 14 April 1986, Margaret Thatcher suffered a rare defeat in the House of Commons when the government’s Shops Bill was rejected at its second reading. The bill, which aimed to do away with all government regulation of Sunday shopping in England and Wales, was defeated by 296 votes to 282 – a majority of 14.
At the time, the government boasted a towering parliamentary majority of 140.
The vote remains the last time a government bill has been defeated at its second reading stage. The only other government bill to be rejected at this stage since 1924 is the Reduction of Redundancy Rebates Bill (1977). That came during James Callaghan’s tenure as PM.
The defeat over the Shops Bill was delivered by a rebellion of 72 Conservative MPs, who defied a three-line whip and voted with the opposition.
In rejecting the legislation, the rebels were supported by the Keep Sunday Special campaign, a powerful if somewhat unlikely coalition of religious groups, social conservatives, some prominent food retailers, smaller private businesses and trade unionists. The campaign included those who sought to preserve the sanctity of the Christian Sabbath. Labour MPs, who also voted against the bill en masse, were largely motivated by the concerns voiced by trade unions and fears over eroding shop workers’ rights.
Critical MPs also voiced concerns about the impact of deregulation on small, independent retailers.
Some MPs called on the government to announce the debate would commence as a “free vote”, arguing the issue of Sunday trading “involves issues of deep conscience”. In an attempt to reduce the rebellion at second reading, Hurd promised a “series of free votes” at future stages.
The Shops Bill saga was a demonstration of the limits of Thatcher’s authority. Crucially, it encapsulated the ideological-moral tensions between her liberal economic policy which championed deregulation, and the standing of some more socially conservative Tory MPs.
Thatcher’s parliamentary defeat is arguably under-considered due to it falling on the same evening US warplanes bombed targets in Libya, with several taking off from British airbases. The following morning, newspaper coverage was dominated by the US military action. Charlie Price, the then US ambassador, later joked that Thatcher had given president Ronald Reagan the right to use the UK bases provided he time the attack to coincide with the Shops Bill vote.
Nonetheless, the Shops Bill saga marked the only major parliamentary defeat Thatcher suffered during her time in office. Following the defeat, the government was forced to abandon its plans, and the issue of Sunday trading was not treated again until a compromise measure allowing limited opening hours, set out in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, was passed.
Starmer at second reading: Labour rebellion sparks welfare U-turn (2025)
On 1 July 2025, Keir Starmer as prime minister was forced into a dramatic climbdown over his government’s flagship welfare reform bill, just 90 minutes before voting began in the House of Commons. Faced with a significant backbench rebellion that threatened his first commons defeat, Starmer sanctioned a series of sweeping eleventh-hour concessions.
The controversy centred on the government’s proposals to reform eligibility for personal independence payments (Pip) and universal credit (UC). The measures, set out by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, aimed to save approximately £5 billion annually by the end of the decade.
In the days leading up to the vote, a rebel reasoned amendment to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill secured over 120 signatures from Labour MPs.
Tabled in the name of senior Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier, the amendment objected to the fact that the bill had not been subject to a “formal consultation with disabled people” and that “250,000 people will be pushed into poverty” as a result of it.
The motion also called on the government to wait for the publication of the review into the Personal Independence Payment (Pip), helmed by disability minister Sir Stephen Timms, and the independent review, conducted by Sir Charlie Mayfield, into how the employment of disabled people could be boosted.
Starmer initially described the burgeoning rebellion as “noises off” – a comment that saw his political judgement placed under renewed scrutiny.
Days of negotiations with the rebel group, led by select committee chairs Hillier and Debbie Abrahams, resulted in a significant concession. On 26 June, it was announced that no existing Pip claimants would be subject to new, stricter eligibility rules. The government also reversed some of the planned universal credit cuts.
The partial U-turn appeased some of the bill’s critics. But it was not enough to suppress the rebellion. As such, just 90 minutes before MPs were due to vote, Timms told the commons that changes to restrict Pip would be delayed until after his review of the disability benefit. Originally, the Pip changes were due to come in from November 2026.
Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary, responded that the bill had “more or less disintegrated”.
On the Labour benches, the U-turn was met with bemusement.
Mary Kelly Foy said she had “popped out earlier for a banana, and when I came back in, things had changed again, so I am even more unclear of what I am voting on.”
The gutted bill passed by 335 to 260 votes – a majority of 75. At the time, Labour possessed a working majority of 165.
A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the second reading – a still sizeable rebellion given the scale of concessions made. The vote, and the tumultuous 24 hours that preceded it, represented a serious dent in the prime minister’s authority.
Speaking on 3 July, Starmer admitted that the government “didn’t get the process right”.
On 16 July, four Labour MPs had the party whip suspended after rebelling against the government. The group, which included Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Rachael Maskell, were described as “persistent rebels” by party sources.
Blair at second reading: knife-edge tuition fees vote (2004)
On 27 January 2004, Tony Blair’s government won a crucial vote on its university top-up fees policy by a majority of just five. The second reading of the Higher Education Bill, which paved the way for universities to charge tuition fees of up to £3,000 per year, passed by 316 votes to 311.
It marked the biggest revolt on a three-line whip in more than 50 years.
The Higher Education Bill proposed a shift in university funding by introducing variable tuition fees. It abolished the up-front fee fixed at just over £1,000 per year, introduced in 1998 under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, and made provision for the deferred payment of student tuition fees. Under the proposals, universities would be allowed to “top up” the fees to a level that more accurately reflected the funding they needed.
Universities were allowed to increase tuition fees from the flat rate to a maximum of £3,000 per year. With universities able to charge different amounts, critics feared this would create a “two-tier system”, while saddling graduates with debt.
The Higher Education Bill therefore represented a breach of Labour’s 2001 general election manifesto, which stated: “We will not introduce ‘top-up’ fees and have legislated to prevent them.”
The second reading vote came during what was likely the most testing week of Blair’s premiership.
At the time of the top-up fees controversy, Blair also faced the imminent publication of the Hutton Inquiry report into the circumstances surrounding the death of the weapons expert Dr David Kelly.
On 19 January, Blair was subjected to a typically combative BBC Newsnight interview, courtesy of Jeremy Paxman. The prime minister was asked if he would win the Higher Education Bill vote on 27 January.
The prime minister responded: “I believe I will survive it, yes.”
In a bid to head off the rebellion, the government announced a series of concessions, including a full-scale independent review of the top-up fees system after three years, and a guarantee the upper threshold for fees would not rise above £3,000 for two general elections.
During the commons debate, Nick Brown, the former chief whip and Gordon Brown ally, confirmed he would vote for the government.
Brown, seen as the leading rebel organiser, began by stating his objections to the proposed legislation, namely “the increase in the level of debt for graduates; the difficulties with regard to the current proposals for meeting the universities’ funding gap, as it is said to be; and the two issues of principle – the manifesto pledge and, most significant for me, the potential introduction of a marketplace in higher education.”
He welcomed the government’s concessions, however, including the commitment that “in the spending review moneys will be set aside for the purpose of whatever recommendations are produced by the interim commission.”
Among those putative rebels to indicate they would now vote with the government were Barbara Roche, Ann Campbell, Bob Blizzard, Angela Eagle and Clive Betts. Gordon Brown was reported to have played a prominent role in persuading rebels, including Kevan Jones, Helen Jones and Bob Blizzard, to back the government.
Several Labour MPs remained steadfastly opposed to the bill, however. Ian Gibson, another leading rebel, appealed to his colleagues to prevent the “extension of the financial market in higher education”.
After a six-hour debate, on the eve of the publication of the Hutton inquiry report, the Higher Education Bill was backed by 316 votes to 311 – a major reduction in the government’s majority of 161 and the tightest victory of Blair’s premiership. At the time, the government’s majority was believed to be around 165. In total, 72 Labour MPs rebelled.
Emerging from the vote, Helen Jones told reporters: “I voted for the government holding my nose. I think there has been concessions made today and Gordon [Brown] made the point about not defeating the Labour government.”
Education secretary Charles Clarke subsequently told BBC News: “Had we lost [the vote], it would have been a blow to our authority, but as it is we have the ability to take the legislation forward.”
The Hutton inquiry report, published 28 January, ran to 750 pages in 13 chapters and 18 appendices.
It exonerated the government much more completely than had been expected.
Heath at second reading: key Common Market vote (1972)
On 17 February 1972, Edward Heath’s Conservative government won a critical vote on the second reading of the European Communities Bill by a majority of just eight, securing its passage at second reading by 309 votes to 301.
The vote marked the most significant parliamentary hurdle to the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Economic Community (EEC).
Heath as prime minister had made the vote a matter of confidence. A defeat in the division lobbies, therefore, would have precipitated the downfall of the Heath government and, the prime minister warned, a general election.
In an announcement shortly before the vote, Heath said: “I must tell the House that my colleagues and I are of one mind that the government cannot abdicate their responsibilities in this matter.
“Therefore, if this House will not agree to the second reading of the bill tonight and so refuses to give legislative effect to its own decision of principle, taken by a vast majority less than four months ago, my colleagues and I are unanimous that in these circumstances this parliament cannot sensibly continue.”
The debate exposed divisions over Europe within both major parties.
In the end, the bill’s passage was effectively ensured by a small group of pro-European Labour MPs, who defied their own party’s whip to vote in abstaining. A total of five Labour MPs abstained.
This group of Labour europhile rebels had previously been led by Roy Jenkins. Jenkins, however, voted against the bill at second reading, choosing to toe the party line. Jenkins reportedly resolved it was the only way he could stay in the Labour Party and make the case for a pro-European policy. As prime minister, Labour leader Harold Wilson had favoured British entry into the common market. But he changed his position after losing the 1970 election.
A rebellion of 15 Conservative MPs voted with the opposition against the bill. Four chose to abstain.
Had the Labour rebels voted with their party leadership, which had imposed a three-line whip, Heath’s majority would have been down to just three.
Five members of the Liberal Party also voted for the bill. Had those MPs voted with Labour, the bill and the government would have also fallen. It was reported that some Labour MPs “began pushing and manhandling” Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe after the vote.
After the result was announced, Heath declared: “Her Majesty’s government will now continue with its consistent policy with the same determination that it has shown in the past.”
The legislation, which gave legal force to the Treaty of Accession and legal authority for European law to have effect as national law in the UK, was the central policy of the Heath government. The European Communities Act also gave EU law supremacy over UK national law.
The bill’s passage ultimately paved the way for the UK to formally join the EEC on 1 January 1973.
Heath, who left office as prime minister in February 1974, regarded joining the EEC as his greatest achievement.
Additional resources
- UK Parliament Video – What is the passage of a bill? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36rCcMA2X8
- GOV.UK – Legislative process: taking a bill through Parliament https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament
