Hubbry Logo
Reading (legislature)Reading (legislature)Main
Open search
Reading (legislature)
Community hub
Reading (legislature)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Reading (legislature)
Reading (legislature)
Reading (legislature)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A reading of a bill is a stage of debate on the bill held by a general body of a legislature.

In the Westminster system, developed in the United Kingdom, there are generally three readings of a bill as it passes through the stages of becoming, or failing to become, legislation. Some of these readings may be formalities rather than actual debate. Legislative bodies in the United States also have readings.

The procedure dates back to the centuries before literacy was widespread. Since many members of Parliament were illiterate, the Clerk of Parliament would read aloud a bill to inform members of its contents. By the end of the 16th century, it was practice to have the bill read on three occasions before it was passed.[1]

Preliminary reading

[edit]

In the Israeli Knesset, private member bills do not enter the house at first reading. Instead, they are subject to a preliminary reading, where the members introducing the bill present it to the Knesset, followed by a debate on the general outlines of the bill followed by a vote on whether to send it to committee to be prepared for first reading or to remove it from the agenda.

First reading

[edit]

A first reading is when a bill is introduced to a legislature.

Typically, in the United States, the title of the bill is read and the bill is immediately assigned to a committee. The bill is then considered by committee between the first and second readings. In the United States Senate and most British-influenced legislatures, the committee consideration occurs between second and third readings.

In most non Westminster-style legislatures, a vote is taken on the general outlines of the bill before being sent to committee.

Australia

[edit]

In the Australian House of Representatives, a bill is automatically read a first time without any question being proposed upon presentation of the bill or it being received from the Senate.[2]

However, in the Australian Senate, the question on the first reading is always moved immediately after introduction (which is a separate motion altogether) or receipt from the House of Representatives and may be voted on. Amendments to or debate on the first reading is not permitted, except for bills subject to section 53 of the Constitution (i.e. appropriation and money bills), in which case debate is permitted. This exception is necessary because section 53 gives senators the right to move requests to the House of Representatives for amendments to a financial bill (to which the Senate is not allowed to amend) at any stage of consideration of the bill, including on the first reading.[3]

The first readings of most ordinary bills are almost always a formality and are passed "on the voices".[4] In extremely rare circumstances however, the Senate may vote against the first reading, which prevents the bill from proceeding further. This has happened as recently as June 2021, when the Ministerial Suitability Commission of Inquiry Bill 2021 (Cth), introduced by Greens Senator Larissa Waters in relation to the 1988 rape allegation against the Attorney-General Christian Porter, was narrowly negatived in a division.[5]

Similar arrangements are in place in the parliaments of the states and territories.

Canada

[edit]

In the House of Commons of Canada, in addition to the usual introduction of a bill by a member for first reading, a member of the cabinet may move a motion to appoint or to instruct a committee to prepare a bill.

Republic of Ireland

[edit]

In the Oireachtas of Ireland, the first stage of a bill is by either of two methods:[6][7][8]

  • introduction by a private member moving a motion "that leave be given to introduce" the bill—the bill goes to second stage if the motion is carried
  • presentation on behalf of either the government (unlimited numbers) or a parliamentary group (one at a time per group in the Dáil, three in the Seanad)—the bill automatically goes to second stage

Israel

[edit]

In the Israeli Knesset, the committee consideration occurs between first and second readings and (for private member bills) between preliminary and first readings, and the first reading includes a debate on the general outlines of the bill followed by a vote on whether or not to send it to committee.

New Zealand

[edit]

In New Zealand, once a bill passes first reading it is normally referred to a select committee. However, the government can have a bill skip the select committee stage by a simple majority vote in Parliament.

It was possible in the earliest years of the New Zealand Parliament for a bill to be defeated on first reading if a member introduced it and no one seconded it, even if the first reading did not require a formal vote.[9] However, the practice of requiring a seconder for a motion has since been removed,[10] and thus an introduced bill cannot be defeated until the end of its first reading.

Poland

[edit]

In the Polish Sejm, the first reading comprises a debate on the general outlines of the bill. Notably, only constitutional amendment bills, money bills, electoral law bills, and law code bills have their first reading at a plenary session of the Sejm; all other bills have their first reading occur in committee, unless the Marshal of the Sejm decides to refer them to the plenum.

Russia

[edit]

In the Russian State Duma, the first reading includes a debate on the general outlines of the bill followed by a vote on whether or not to send it to committee.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In both Houses of the British Parliament, bills introduced by the government or by MPs and Lords who won the private members' ballot automatically receive a first reading without the need for the bill being discussed or voted on; the same applies for bills brought from the other House (for example, a bill which has completed all its stages in the House of Lords is immediately brought to the House of Commons, where it receives a first reading).

Bills introduced under the Ten Minute Rule are subject to a debate lasting not more than ten minutes (equally divided between a supporter and an opponent), followed by a vote is held on the motion "That leave be granted to bring in" the bill; the latter receives a first reading only if the motion is carried.

After a bill has been read a first time, it is ordered to be printed.

Second reading

[edit]
"Second reading" redirects here. For second reading at a mass, see Mass (liturgy) § Liturgy of the Word.

A second reading is the stage of the legislative process where a draft of a bill is read a second time.

In most Westminster-style legislatures, a vote is taken on the general outlines of the bill before being sent to committee. In most non-Westminster-style legislatures, the bill's detailed provisions are considered in the second reading, and then voted on clause by clause.

Republic of Ireland

[edit]

In the Oireachtas, the second reading is referred to as "second stage", though the subheading "second reading" is used in Dáil standing orders, and the motion at second stage is still "that the Bill is to be read a second time". A bill introduced in one house enters the other house at second stage, except that the Seanad second stage is waived for Dáil consolidation bills. Once the bill passes second stage it is referred to a select committee of that house or taken in committee stage by the whole house.[6][11][12]

Israel

[edit]

In the Knesset, the bill's detailed provisions are considered in the second reading, and then voted on clause by clause. However, continuous stretches of clauses without any proposed amendments (which includes different wordings for the same clause written in the original bill), are voted as a single bloc. The starting point for the bill considered in second reading is its post-committee consideration text, which can vary widely from the bill voted on in first reading, even to the point of mergers and splits.

New Zealand

[edit]

In New Zealand, once a bill passes a second reading it is then considered clause-by-clause by the whole Parliament. If a majority of Parliament agree, the bill can be considered part-by-part, saving considerable time. Because most bills must have majority support to pass a second reading, it is now very rare for a bill to be considered clause-by-clause.

Poland

[edit]

In the Polish Sejm, the second reading comprises a consideration of the committee's report on the bill (as committee consideration between first and second readings), and an introduction of any proposed amendments, although the Sejm's standing orders do not provide for a clause by clause vote on the bill itself, or on any amendment, during the second reading. If amendments are introduced to a bill, it is returned for further committee consideration between second and third readings unless the Sejm decides otherwise.

Russia

[edit]

In the Russian State Duma, the bill's detailed provisions are considered in the second reading, and then voted on clause by clause.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In both Houses of the British Parliament the second reading includes a debate on the general outlines of the bill, followed by a vote on the motion "that the Bill be now read a second time" (or sometimes on a wrecking amendment to that motion).

If the motion is carried, the bill is then sent either to a standing committee or to a Committee of the Whole House, where it is considered and voted on clause by clause.

United States

[edit]

In the United States Senate, a bill is either referred to committee or placed on the Calendar of Business after second reading. No vote is held on whether to read the bill a second time. In U.S. legislatures where consideration in committee precedes second reading, the procedure varies as to how a bill reaches second reading. In Illinois, for example, legislation is automatically read a second time, after which amendments are in order.

Third reading

[edit]
"Fifth stage" redirects here. For the Heroes episode, see The Fifth Stage.

A third reading is the stage of a legislative process in which a bill is read with all amendments and given final approval by a legislative body.

In legislatures whose procedures are based on those of the Westminster system, the third reading occurs after the bill has been amended by committee and considered for amendment at report stage (or, in Israel's case, second reading).

In most bicameral legislatures, a bill must separately pass the third reading in both chambers. Once that happens, it is sent on for promulgation, such as royal assent in the Westminster system or signing by the president or governor in the U.S. model.

In some bicameral legislatures, such as the Parliament of Poland or of the Czech Republic, a bill must pass three readings in the lower house, but only one reading in the upper house, at which the bill may be passed unchanged, amended, or rejected; and if the bill is not passed unchanged by the upper house, it is returned to the lower house, which may impose its original version by a supermajority, and is sent to promulgation after passing both chambers. This "imperfect" procedure requires that all bills must be introduced to the lower house, although this may be mitigated by giving the upper house the right to submit bills to the lower.

In a unicameral legislature, after passing the third reading in the sole chamber, the bill goes on directly for promulgation.

Republic of Ireland

[edit]

In the Oireachtas of Ireland, the equivalent of the third reading is referred to as the "fifth stage" or "final stage". The motion is "That the Bill do now pass", except that the Seanad motion for a money bill is "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil". When a bill passes one house, it is sent to the other house and enters at second stage. After both houses have passed the bill, it is sent to the President of Ireland to be signed into law.[6][13][14]

Poland

[edit]

In the Polish Sejm, the third reading comprises a presentation of the amendments passed in second reading (or of a second committee report on the bill that was returned to committee after second reading), and a voting sequence: first on a motion to reject the bill (if one is introduced), then on the amendments introduced in second reading, and a final vote on the bill as amended.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In both Houses of the British Parliament, after a bill has been reported from the committee to which it was assigned, consideration of the proposal moves to the so-called "Report Stage", during which further amendments may be table and voted on. After Report Stage has ended, a debate is held on the final bill, as amended, followed by a vote on the motion "That the Bill be now read a third time". If the motion is carried, the bill is passed.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Reading (legislature)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In legislative procedure, a reading constitutes a formal stage in the deliberation of a bill by a chamber of a , where the bill's title, content, or key elements are presented, debated, or voted upon, ensuring orderly progression toward enactment. These stages—typically first, second, and third readings—originate from the and structure the process to allow initial introduction, principled debate, detailed examination via committees, and final approval, with variations across jurisdictions to balance efficiency and scrutiny. The first reading serves primarily as a formality, involving the announcement of the bill's title and referral to , without substantive or , to notify members and initiate the legislative calendar. Following review, the second reading focuses on the bill's general principles, enabling members to its merits, propose rejection, or advance it for further scrutiny, often marking the first substantive vote. The third reading, after amendments and report stages, presents the refined bill for final and passage, with limited changes permitted to expedite closure while confirming consensus. This framework promotes transparency and deliberation but can extend timelines, prompting reforms in some systems to streamline processes without eroding , as seen in expedited procedures for urgent . In non-Westminster legislatures, such as the U.S. Congress, analogous steps emphasize work over ritualistic readings, reflecting adaptations to federal structures and bicameral dynamics.

Overview

Definition and General Process

In legislative procedure, particularly in parliamentary systems derived from the Westminster model, the "readings" of a bill constitute the structured stages of its consideration and passage through a chamber of the legislature. These stages—typically three in number—originate from historical practices aimed at ensuring deliberate review when literacy rates were low and bills were read aloud to members. The process mandates that each reading occur on separate sitting days in many jurisdictions to prevent rushed enactment and facilitate scrutiny. The general process begins with the first reading, a formal introduction where the bill's short title is announced, and it is ordered printed and referred to a for detailed examination; no occurs at this stage. Following committee review and any amendments, the second reading addresses the bill's principles and policy merits, involving substantive and a vote on whether to proceed. The third reading then considers the bill in its amended form for final approval, with limited opportunities for further changes, culminating in a vote to pass it to the other chamber or for executive assent if identical versions are agreed. This sequence promotes transparency and incremental evaluation, though variations exist, such as abbreviated processes for non-controversial bills via . In practice, the readings enforce procedural discipline: bills must advance sequentially, with failure at any stage halting progress unless revived by special motion. This framework, codified in standing orders, applies in bodies like the UK House of Commons, Canadian House of Commons, and Australian Parliament, where over 90% of public bills undergo the full cycle annually, barring guillotine motions to limit debate time. Empirical analysis of legislative outputs shows that the multi-reading structure correlates with lower reversal rates post-passage, indicating enhanced causal foresight in law-making.

Historical Origins

The practice of legislative readings originated in the English during the medieval period, evolving from assemblies where proposed laws, often in the form of petitions or ordinances, were publicly proclaimed aloud to the gathered members. This stemmed from practical necessities: limited among parliamentarians, scarcity of written copies, and the absence of printing technology, which necessitated verbal recitation to ensure comprehension and allow for immediate scrutiny. Early records indicate that by the , parliamentary sessions under Edward III (1327–1377) involved readings of bills or acts, though not yet rigidly structured into three distinct stages, as the focus was on collective hearing rather than formal debate separation. The formalized three-reading process—first for introduction, second for principle and debate, and third for final approval—crystallized by the late . By the end of Elizabeth I's reign (1558–1603), it had become standard procedure, with the first reading entailing no debate and merely announcing the bill's title, followed by referral to a after the second reading for amendments, and a conclusive vote at the third without further changes in the originating house. This evolution reflected causal adaptations to growing legislative volume and the need for deliberate pacing to mitigate errors from haste, as multiple recitations provided intervals for reflection and objection. The tradition persisted due to its utility in promoting transparency and preventing covert or poorly vetted legislation, influencing subsequent Westminster-model parliaments worldwide. For instance, Canadian explicitly traces the requirement of three readings to this "ancient" English origin, emphasizing its role in orderly progression from proposal to enactment. While the literal full reading faded with printing's advent in the , the stages retained symbolic and functional value, embedding safeguards against impulsive lawmaking rooted in empirical lessons from earlier chaotic sessions.

Purposes and Rationale

Promoting Deliberation and Scrutiny

The multi-stage reading process in legislatures serves to encourage deliberate examination and critical of bills, preventing impulsive enactment of laws that may contain errors, ambiguities, or unintended effects. By requiring bills to undergo formal readings at key intervals, assemblies provide structured opportunities for members to review text, assess implications, and engage in debate, thereby elevating legislative quality through iterative refinement. This approach traces to historical practices aimed at ensuring accountability, as evidenced in systems like the Westminster model, where readings demarcate phases of initial introduction, principled debate, and final approval. At the second reading, typically the primary venue for substantive deliberation, legislators debate the bill's core principles, policy rationale, and broad impacts, fostering scrutiny of whether it aligns with and fiscal prudence. This stage compels proponents to defend provisions against critiques, often revealing weaknesses; for instance, in the UK , second reading debates have historically prompted government concessions or withdrawals when scrutiny exposes flawed assumptions. Committee scrutiny, closely tied to post-second reading review, amplifies this by enabling clause-by-clause analysis, where amendments address technical deficiencies—data from parliamentary records indicate thousands of such changes annually across jurisdictions, directly improving draft quality. Third reading reinforces scrutiny by revisiting the amended bill in its near-final form, allowing a focused on modifications without reopening broad disputes, thus confirming coherence and mitigating risks from alterations. This final hurdle ensures sustained attention, as abrupt changes during earlier stages are checked; constitutional mandates, such as California's requirement for three readings before debate and vote, underscore this as a safeguard against oversight, with procedural data showing it curtails the advancement of unexamined proposals. Overall, these readings promote causal by linking deliberation to evidentiary , reducing enactment of prone to judicial reversal or administrative failure.

Facilitating Informed Decision-Making

The multiple readings of a legislative bill establish a sequenced framework that enables legislators to progressively assimilate information about the proposed measure, thereby mitigating the risk of uninformed or precipitate enactments. In systems derived from the Westminster model, the first reading serves primarily as formal notice of the bill's introduction and title, without substantive debate, allowing members to obtain copies for initial review. This stage ensures that the bill's existence and basic outline are disseminated, providing an opportunity for preliminary analysis before deeper engagement. Subsequent intervals between readings, often mandated by standing orders to span multiple days, afford time for members to consult constituents, experts, and stakeholders, fostering a more deliberate evaluation of the bill's implications. At the second reading, debate centers on the bill's general principles and policy objectives, informed by the prior dissemination of its text and any interim feedback. This phase permits legislators to assess whether the proposed framework aligns with , economic data, or legal precedents, often drawing on referrals or public submissions gathered in the interim. For instance, in the , second reading typically occurs no earlier than two weekends after first reading, explicitly to allow MPs to reflect and gather input, enhancing the quality of scrutiny. Such structured counters the cognitive and informational limitations of single-session voting, enabling amendments that refine the bill based on identified flaws or new data, as evidenced in jurisdictions like where the process is explicitly designed to avert "hasty or uninformed decisions" affecting citizens' lives. The third reading, following committee scrutiny and report stages, focuses on the bill's final form after amendments, serving as a capstone for informed ratification. By this point, legislators have access to revised text incorporating detailed line-by-line analysis, fiscal impact assessments, and potential legal challenges, reducing enactment errors. This iterative progression, rooted in historical practices to prevent snap judgments when bills were read aloud for illiterate assemblies, now functions to build cumulative knowledge, with empirical support from procedural rules requiring separate days for each reading to enforce temporal separation. In effect, the readings compel a causal chain from to critique to refinement, promoting grounded in verified particulars rather than abstract advocacy.

Stages of the Legislative Reading Process

Preliminary or Introductory Reading

The preliminary or introductory reading serves as an initial procedural filter in the legislative process, primarily for private members' bills in certain parliamentary systems, where the bill is presented to the full house for debate on its general principles and an indicative vote on whether to advance it further. This stage allows legislators to assess the bill's viability early, preventing time-intensive scrutiny of proposals lacking broad support. Unlike government bills, which often bypass this step due to executive priority, private bills require this hurdle to proceed to review or formal readings. In the Israeli Knesset, for example, the preliminary reading involves the sponsoring member of Knesset (MK) or group submitting the bill with an explanatory memorandum; the plenum then debates its substance, followed by a vote—typically requiring a simple majority for passage—before referral to a relevant for amendments and preparation for first reading. This mechanism, established to manage the volume of over 1,000 private bills introduced annually, ensures only meritorious proposals consume further resources, with failure at this stage effectively killing the bill unless revived. Variations exist across jurisdictions; in some hybrid or non-Westminster systems, this stage may incorporate input or fiscal impact assessments, but it consistently emphasizes efficiency by weeding out underdeveloped or contentious ideas pre-emptively. Critics argue it can disadvantage minority-sponsored bills due to partisan voting patterns, as evidenced by low passage rates—under 10% for private bills in the historically—though proponents highlight its role in prioritizing legislative agendas aligned with majority will.

First Reading

The first reading constitutes the initial formal stage in the passage of a bill through a , particularly in Westminster-style parliamentary systems, where it serves primarily as a procedural announcement without substantive debate or . During this stage, the clerk of the house reads aloud the short title of the bill, signifying its official introduction to members, after which an order is issued for the bill to be printed and distributed. This formality ensures that legislators are notified of the proposed legislation's existence and basic scope, allowing for subsequent stages of scrutiny while adhering to constitutional traditions requiring bills to receive multiple readings before enactment. In the United Kingdom's , the first reading typically occurs immediately upon the bill's presentation by a minister or private member, often on the same day it is laid before the house, and it bypasses any discussion to expedite the process toward examination. Similarly, in the , the stage remains a non-debated formality, with the title read out to formally commence proceedings. The absence of debate at this juncture reflects a deliberate to prevent premature contention, reserving detailed evaluation for later readings where evidence and arguments can be systematically presented. This procedure traces its rationale to historical practices aimed at transparency and orderly progression, ensuring that bills are not advanced covertly but are publicly introduced before printing facilitates access to their full text. In practice, the stage rarely lasts more than a few minutes and is recorded in the parliamentary journal or for archival purposes. While uniform in its formality across chambers, analogous processes in other jurisdictions, such as Canadian or Australian parliaments, mirror this by announcing the bill's title and sponsor upon introduction, though local standing orders may specify minor variations in announcement format. The first reading thus functions as a gateway, transitioning the bill from drafting to active legislative consideration without imposing early substantive hurdles.

Second Reading

The second reading represents the initial substantive examination of a bill's core principles and policy objectives within many parliamentary systems, particularly those influenced by the Westminster model. During this stage, following the formal introduction at first reading, the full text of the bill becomes available for review, and members of the debate its general merits rather than specific clauses or amendments, which are reserved for later scrutiny. The debate typically commences with an opening speech by the bill's sponsor or a government minister outlining its rationale, followed by responses from opposition leaders and contributions from other members, emphasizing broad support, opposition, or suggested policy directions. In the House of Commons, for instance, second reading occurs no earlier than two weekends after first reading to allow time for members to study , with the focusing exclusively on whether the proposed principles align with goals. A vote follows the , serving as an "all or nothing" decision on advancing ; rejection at this point halts its progress without prejudice to reintroduction in a future session. Similarly, in the , the stage permits on 's key purposes and potential concerns, though without the same mandatory timing constraints. This process ensures early identification of fundamental disagreements, promoting efficiency by filtering out bills lacking majority principle-based support before resource-intensive detailed review. Amendments to the bill's principles are generally not permitted during second reading, preserving the stage's focus on high-level approval; any substantive changes arise later. In jurisdictions like , the debate similarly targets the bill's scope and underlying principles, with members able to propose referral to for further consideration as an alternative to outright rejection. Successful passage at second reading signals legislative intent to proceed, transitioning the bill to committee stage for clause-by-clause analysis, where , stakeholder input, and fiscal implications receive deeper . This sequencing underscores the stage's role in balancing expeditious lawmaking with deliberate policy vetting, though its effectiveness depends on the quality of debate and attendance, as evidenced by historical instances where controversial bills advanced despite limited opposition turnout.

Third Reading

The third reading marks the final substantive consideration of a bill in a within Westminster-style parliamentary systems, focusing on approval of the text as amended through prior stages. centers on the bill's overall merits and any unresolved details, with the objective of confirming its readiness for passage without reopening broad discussions or permitting major alterations, thereby streamlining the legislative process toward enactment. In the , this stage occurs immediately after report stage, providing the last debate on the bill's contents as they stand, without amendments unless exceptionally allowed under the bill's programming order. Time for debate is typically allocated via a programme motion, often resulting in concise proceedings; the House then votes on the motion "That the Bill be now read a third time," with approval sending to the Lords if it originated in the Commons. The approaches third reading differently, using it to refine the bill for practicality by tabling minor amendments—such as clarifications or fulfillments of earlier government commitments—not fully addressed previously, listed in a marshalled list for orderly . These changes aim to close potential loopholes without altering core principles, followed by a vote; if passed without amendments from the Commons-origin bill, it proceeds toward . In the Australian , governed by Standing Order 155, third reading follows consideration in , with optional but strictly limited to the bill's clauses and schedules, excluding revisitation of earlier matters. No substantive are permitted, though a procedural amendment to omit "now" can defer or defeat the motion; speakers are capped at 15 minutes for the mover and 10 minutes for others, after which a vote on the third reading motion leads to the Clerk reading the long title, signifying House passage and transmission to the . Canadian procedure aligns closely, with third reading in the entailing debate on the final version post-report stage, culminating in a vote to forward the bill to the if approved, where rejection halts progress. The permits amendments at this stage alongside final debate and voting, potentially returning changes to the Commons for reconciliation before assent.

Variations by Jurisdiction

Westminster-Influenced Parliamentary Systems

In Westminster-influenced parliamentary systems, including those of the , , , and , bills progress through a structured sequence of three readings in each chamber, designed to facilitate orderly introduction, principled , and final approval after scrutiny. The first reading constitutes a formal introduction, where the bill's title is read, its text is published, and it receives a number, typically without debate to allow initial dissemination. This stage, occurring on a date set by the or sponsoring member, ensures the enters the parliamentary record promptly, often on the same day as tabling. The second reading focuses on the bill's general principles and policy objectives, involving speeches from the mover, opposition, and backbenchers, followed by a vote on whether to proceed. Debate here, limited by time allocations in some jurisdictions like the , tests the bill's merit without delving into specifics, with rejection at this point effectively killing the measure. Post-second reading, bills undergo stage for clause-by-clause examination, amendments, and evidence from experts, though this is distinct from the formal readings. The stage then allows further amendments based on committee findings before third reading. Third reading provides a final debate on the bill as amended, with no new amendments permitted in the originating house in systems like the Commons, culminating in a vote for passage to the second chamber if bicameral. Upon identical passage in both houses and , the bill becomes law. This reading framework, rooted in historical practices to prevent hasty , promotes deliberate review, though procedural rules vary—such as Canada's requirement for readings on separate days and Australia's inclusion of a in the . In unicameral , the process simplifies without inter-house ping-ponging, yet retains the three-reading core for accountability.

Presidential and Congressional Systems

In presidential and congressional systems, exemplified by the , the legislative reading process structures bill consideration in a bicameral legislature separate from the executive branch, emphasizing committee scrutiny over ritualistic recitation. A bill undergoes three readings, primarily by title rather than full text, to facilitate orderly progression amid . Upon introduction in the , the bill receives its first reading when the clerk announces its title and number, followed by immediate referral to the appropriate under House rules. In the , introduction involves submission to the desk for a similar titular first reading before committee assignment. The second reading occurs after committee action, if the bill is reported favorably, when it is called up for floor debate under a special rule from the Rules Committee in the House or unanimous consent in the Senate. This stage allows for amendments, detailed discussion, and potential revisions, reflecting the system's focus on legislative independence from executive influence. Unlike fused parliamentary systems, this phase underscores congressional autonomy, as passage does not automatically bind the president, who holds veto authority requiring a two-thirds override for circumvention. The third and final reading precedes engrossment and the vote on passage, ensuring members have reviewed the amended version without further substantive changes, after which the bill advances to the other chamber if approved. Variations exist across presidential systems, but core elements persist due to constitutional designs prioritizing and balances. In Brazil's National , bills similarly progress through three readings in both the Chamber of Deputies and Federal Senate, with intensive committee analysis dominating before floor votes, often complicated by multiparty coalitions and presidential decree powers. Mexico's bicameral employs a comparable sequence, where first reading introduces , second enables debate and amendments post-committee, and third culminates in approval, though adds state-level consultations for certain measures. These processes adapt the reading framework to accommodate executive vetoes and legislative , contrasting with parliamentary mechanisms by insulating readings from dissolution risks.

Civil Law and Other Parliamentary Systems

In civil law parliamentary systems, legislative procedures often feature structured readings that integrate extensive committee examination prior to plenary debates, with bicameral shuttling to reconcile differences between chambers of equal or near-equal legislative authority. This contrasts with Westminster models by emphasizing detailed article-by-article scrutiny in later stages and requiring identical texts from both houses in systems like Italy's perfect . In , bills undergo a multi-reading process across the and . A bill's first reading in the initiating chamber involves general discussion of principles, followed by referral to committees for amendments; if unresolved after 20 days, the government may escalate to a joint committee. Subsequent stages include a second reading for article-by-article debate and voting, with up to two full cycles of shuttling between chambers before potential by a or the 's override on non-financial bills. Germany's employs three formal plenary readings for most bills. The first reading introduces the bill, outlines its purpose, and refers it to committees without extended debate unless recommended; the second reading addresses committee-amended versions in detail; and the third culminates in a final vote, after which the bill proceeds to the Bundesrat for consent (required for about 50% of affecting states) or simple assent. Bundesrat involvement may trigger mediation committees if objections arise, ensuring federal coordination. In , the process prioritizes committee work before plenary sessions, with bills assigned to relevant standing for initial and amendments. Plenary consideration follows in "readings" that encompass general debate, detailed examination, and voting, but the hallmark is iterative shuttling between the and until identical approval or rejection, without a fixed number of readings—potentially extending to multiple passages. This symmetric bicameral requirement, enshrined in the 1948 , applies to ordinary legislation, prolonging timelines but fostering compromise. Other parliamentary systems influenced by civil law traditions, such as the or , adapt similar frameworks: the features advisory review after approval with phased readings, while 's unicameral consolidates three readings into committee-dominated stages followed by plenary votes. These variations underscore a focus on technocratic deliberation and inter-chamber harmony over rapid executive-driven passage.

Supranational and Hybrid Systems

In supranational systems, legislative processes often integrate multiple institutional layers to accommodate shared sovereignty among member states, differing from unitary national models by emphasizing co-decision between parliamentary and executive-like bodies. The exemplifies this through its ordinary legislative procedure (OLP), under which the submits proposals for regulations, directives, or decisions to the and the as co-legislators on equal footing. This procedure, codified in Article 294 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the , structures deliberation into up to three readings, with provisions for early agreement to expedite adoption. During the first reading, the examines the Commission's proposal via its committees, which prepare a report under a designated ; the plenary then adopts a position, potentially with amendments, by simple majority (over 50% of votes cast). The , representing member states' governments, concurrently adopts its own position, often by qualified majority voting. If both institutions align on the text, the act is adopted without further readings; otherwise, the 's position advances to the 's second reading, with no fixed timeline imposed at this stage. In practice, a significant portion of EU legislation—virtually all during the 's ninth term (2019–2024)—reaches provisional agreement at the first reading or early in the second through informal trilogues involving the Commission, , and negotiators. The second reading allows each co-legislator three months (extendable by one month at the request of either) to review and respond to the other's first-reading position. The may reject the 's position outright or propose amendments by absolute majority (at least 361 of 720 members), while the assesses parliamentary amendments. Approval of the 's amendments by the leads to adoption; failure to agree triggers a phase, effectively the third reading, where a dedicated Committee of equal numbers from both institutions negotiates a joint text within six weeks (extendable). This text requires confirmation by simple majority in and qualified majority in within six weeks, or the proposal lapses; has become rare due to pre-emptive compromises. Hybrid systems, blending supranational and intergovernmental elements, mirror these dynamics in the EU's structure, where the directly elected exercises supranational authority while the retains national veto influences in certain areas via special legislative procedures (e.g., consultation or without full readings). In other regional hybrids, such as the , procedures involve committee scrutiny followed by plenary debates and votes on community laws, but binding supranational enforcement remains limited by ratification requirements, deviating from pure reading stages toward oversight and model law adoption. These adaptations prioritize consensus in multi-state contexts, often extending timelines beyond national unicameral processes while mitigating deadlock through structured escalation.

Criticisms and Reforms

Procedural Formality and Effectiveness

The three readings process in legislatures, particularly in Westminster systems, imposes a structured formality requiring bills to advance through distinct stages—introduction at first reading, principled debate at second, detailed scrutiny, report stage amendments, and final approval at third—typically on separate sitting days to facilitate deliberate consideration and prevent precipitate enactment. This design, originating from 17th-century English parliamentary practice, aims to embed pauses for reflection and amendment, theoretically enhancing legislative quality by distributing scrutiny across multiple opportunities. However, its effectiveness is frequently undermined by procedural realities, where first and third readings serve as rituals with negligible debate, concentrating substantive work in compressed and report phases often limited by government-imposed timetables or motions that truncate discussion. Critics highlight the opacity and complexity of these formal stages, which confuse participants and observers alike, fostering inefficiency rather than rigorous analysis; in the UK , for example, the process's inaccessibility requires extensive procedural support for members, yet still results in inadequate pre-passage evaluation for many bills. Empirical indicators of diminished effectiveness include the rarity of government defeats—second reading losses occur sporadically, such as the 1986 Shops Bill—and a decline in allocated parliamentary time for , dropping to 24% of sitting hours since 2006, exacerbated by expedited handling of urgent measures like the 2020 EU Withdrawal Agreement Act, which received only five days of scrutiny. Moreover, partisan bill committees, dominated by government majorities, yield few successful opposition amendments; data from 2000–2010 show just six such changes on average per bill, down from 44 in 1967–1971, suggesting formality masks limited cross-party influence and substantive deliberation. In presidential systems like the U.S. Congress, analogous multi-stage readings (introduction, committee markup, floor debate, and final passage) face similar critiques of ritualism, where procedural rules enable filibusters or holds to stall bills indefinitely, inverting formality into obstruction without commensurate gains in scrutiny quality. Reforms advocated by parliamentary analysts include mandatory pre-legislative drafting and evidence-gathering sessions to front-load analysis, integration of specialized select committees into bill scrutiny for expert input, and restrictions on whole-House committees that bypass detailed review, aiming to restore effectiveness by aligning procedure with modern demands for timely yet thorough lawmaking. These changes preserve the causal safeguard of staged deliberation—reducing errors from haste—while addressing empirical shortfalls in current practice.

Proposals for Modernization

In Westminster-influenced systems, proposals to modernize the readings emphasize flexibility for non-controversial bills while maintaining safeguards against hasty enactment. For instance, the Canadian House of Commons permits, by , completion of all three readings and intervening stages in a single sitting for routine public bills, reducing procedural delays without eliminating deliberative structure. This approach, rooted in standing orders since at least 1985, has been applied to over 20% of government bills annually in recent sessions, prioritizing efficiency for unopposed legislation. In the , programme motions introduced under the Current State of Business Standing Order (No. 14A, adopted 2004) enable timetabling of bill stages, including readings, to prevent filibustering and ensure passage within parliamentary sessions. The Institute for Government has advocated further streamlining by devolving detailed scrutiny from bill committees to permanent select committees, as implemented in the since 1999, thereby compressing the interval between second and third readings for complex bills. Such shifts aim to mitigate criticisms of redundant time, with data showing average bill passage times exceeding 200 sitting days in the . Australian jurisdictions have pursued technological integration to expedite formal readings. New South Wales' 2022 modernization report recommended permanent adoption of and virtual committee stages, piloted during , which reduced third reading durations by up to 50% for non-debated bills through automated processes. Similarly, the federal Parliament's use of Statements of Compatibility with since 2012 mandates pre-reading assessments, allowing first readings to focus on compatibility rather than introduction alone. In supranational contexts like the , the "Parliament 2024" reforms (adopted April 2024) prioritize first and third readings in the ordinary legislative procedure, introducing deadlines for trilogue negotiations to accelerate passage while preserving bicameral input. These changes, amending Rules of Procedure under Rule 188, respond to empirical delays averaging 18 months per directive, favoring evidence-based prioritization over rigid sequencing. Critics from procedural traditionalists argue such streamlining risks insufficient scrutiny, yet proponents cite reduced points as causally linked to higher enactment rates post-reform.

References

  1. https://www.ncsl.org/resources/details/glossary-of-legislative-terms
  2. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-first-reading/
  3. https://www.ourcommons.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch16&Seq=6
  4. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/legislative-process-parliament
  5. https://leg.wa.gov/learn-and-participate/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law/
  6. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-second-reading/
  7. https://www.coloradosenaterepublicans.com/first-second-and-third-reading/
  8. http://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process
  9. https://www.congress.gov/help/learn-about-the-legislative-process/how-our-laws-are-made
  10. https://learn.parl.ca/understanding-comprendre/en/how-parliament-works/how-a-bill-becomes-a-law/
  11. https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/parliamentary-archives/evolution.pdf
  12. https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch16&Seq=2&Language=E
  13. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/survey/vi-times-sitting
  14. https://www.massbar.org/advocacy/legislative-activities/the-legislative-process
  15. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmmodern/1097/1097.pdf
  16. https://consoc.org.uk/the-purpose-of-legislative-scrutiny/
  17. https://www.abstract.us/guides/three-readings-of-a-bill-1
  18. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldstgs.htm
  19. https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/work-of-the-house-of-lords/making-laws/
  20. https://legislature.maine.gov/follow-a-bill-through-the-legislature
  21. https://m.knesset.gov.il/en/about/lexicon/pages/legislation.aspx
  22. https://honestreporting.com/how-a-knesset-bill-becomes-israeli-law/
  23. https://m.knesset.gov.il/en/activity/pages/legislation.aspx
  24. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780791478806-011/pdf
  25. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/legislative-process-taking-a-bill-through-parliament
  26. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-lords-first-reading/
  27. https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/OurProcedure/LegislativeProcess/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.htm
  28. https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/glossary/process-of-a-bill
  29. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-lords-second-reading/
  30. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/commons/coms-commons-third-reading/
  31. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter10/Bills—the_parliamentary_process
  32. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-lords-third-reading/
  33. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/law-making
  34. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/
  35. https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/collections/6jKbMbJM
  36. https://senate.gov.au/passage-of-legislation/index.html
  37. https://www.congress.gov/legislative-process/introduction-and-referral-of-bills
  38. https://www.congress.gov/legislative-process
  39. https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process
  40. https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made
  41. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1672
  42. https://www.csc.edu/news/2018/sabbatical-yields-insights-into-legislative-process-in-mexico.html
  43. https://www.bundestag.de/en/parliament/function/legislation/passage-245704
  44. https://en.camera.it/4?scheda_informazioni=15
  45. https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/langues/welcome-to-the-english-website-of-the-french-national-assembly
  46. https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/content/download/936583/8903314/version/1/file/Getting%2Bto%2Bknow%2Bthe%2BFrench%2BNational%2BAssembly%2B2024.pdf
  47. https://www.bundestag.de/en/parliament/function/legislation/07firstrdg-245864
  48. https://www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/constitution/legislation/law-making-process/law-making-process-node.html
  49. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/06/the-italian-legislative-procedure/
  50. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/olp/en/ordinary-legislative-procedure/overview
  51. https://epthinktank.eu/2025/04/16/understanding-trilogue-parliaments-rules-and-practices-for-reaching-provisional-agreement-on-legislation/
  52. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/738331/IPOL_STU%282022%29738331_EN.pdf
  53. https://www.eala.org/about/category/mandate
  54. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-12/the-legislative-process.pdf
  55. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ladocs/inquiries/2545/Final%2520Report%2520-%2520Modernisation%2520and%2520reform%2520of%2520practices%2520and%2520procedures%2520-%2520November%25202022.PDF
  56. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter10/Bills%25E2%2580%2594the_parliamentary_process
  57. https://epthinktank.eu/2024/09/13/the-european-parliaments-new-rules-of-procedure-parliament-2024-reforms/
  58. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0176_EN.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.