The Government has recently faced a self-inflicted storm of controversy over Ministers and MPs - particularly the Prime Minister - accepting gifts and hospitality, often referred to as 'freebies'. In response, the Government has announced a plan to align the rules for Ministers with those already applied to other parliamentarians.

Currently, there is a counterintuitive discrepancy in how gifts and hospitality are declared: backbench MPs and Shadow Ministers face stricter rules than sitting Ministers. MPs must declare any gifts or hospitality worth over £300 (if it could reasonably be seen as related to their parliamentary or political activities) within 28 days, including details like the donor’s name, status, and the estimated value of the gift or hospitality. These declarations are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, which is updated every two weeks. However, Ministers declare hospitality related to their government role through departmental declarations, which lack some key details - such as estimated value - and are only published quarterly (and often belatedly).

To resolve this imbalance, the Government could amend the Ministerial Code and transparency guidance to match the parliamentary standards or require Ministers to declare gifts and hospitality received in their government role on the Register of Members’ Interests, just like other MPs. Given that the Government also announced plans to add a "new set of principles on gifts and hospitality" to the Ministerial Code, the former option seems more likely.

While changes to the Ministerial Code do not require formal parliamentary approval, they can still be subject to debate and scrutiny throughout the parliamentary Session, and we can expect this to be a regular theme mined by the opposition parties in the months ahead.

This controversy may also now elevate prioritisation of the Government's broader manifesto commitments on standards. Labour promised to implement "a clean-up that ensures the highest standards of integrity and honesty," including establishing a new, independent Ethics and Integrity Commission with its own Chair, and empowering the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests to initiate investigations. While concrete proposals and timelines for these changes are yet to be established, there is growing pressure to address them as soon as possible in this Session.

On 16 October, the 20 MPs who secured a spot in the Private Members’ Bill (PMB) ballot last month will present their chosen bills for First Reading. Kim Leadbeater MP, who came first in the ballot and who therefore has the best chance of steering her bill into law, has confirmed she will introduce a bill to legalise ‘assisted dying’ (and she has indicated it will be called the Choice at the End-of-Life Bill).

The specific 13 Fridays that the House will set aside for debating Private Members' Bills have not yet been announced. These dates must be confirmed by 16 October.

When the 20 MPs who succeeded in the ballot present their bills on the 16 October, they need only provide a short and long title. The full text may appear later but must be published in advance of the Second Reading debate. Of the 13 sitting Fridays allocated for PMBs, the first seven will be dedicated to Second Reading debates. Kim Leadbeater will have first pick of the seven Friday dates for her bill and she will likely choose the first Friday available unless, for some reason, the bill is not ready and cannot be published by that date.

The Second Reading debate on the bill will be a crucial test of the culture and civility of this newly elected House of Commons. Assisted dying is a deeply emotive issue, and with uncertainty about how many MPs support it, the debate is sure to attract significant public attention and lively discussion on social media. If the debate turns divisive, with supporters portrayed as compassionate and opponents as cruel - or the reverse – it will become rancorous (with the differences cutting across party lines as the House experienced during Brexit). The way MPs handle this debate will significantly impact their collective reputation in this Parliament, for better or worse.

The legislative procedures for PMBs are different to those for Government bills. Utilising the procedural mechanisms that can often thwart PMBs – filibustering to talk out the bill or moving a closure motion early to curtail the Second Reading debate – will also be difficult for a watching public to understand. If the Bill passes at Second Reading it will still face procedural hurdles that could derail it. And the House, unless it amends its procedures, could face reputational damage.

The selection of MPs to sit on the Public Bill Committee (PBC) – the next stage after Second Reading – will be controversial if they do not fairly reflect the balance of opinion in the House. On Government bills there is provision for PBCs to take evidence – oral and written – from experts and the public; that does not happen for PMBs so the House may have to change the rules. But taking evidence would extend the time the Bill spends in Committee as the length of the Session and the number of Friday sittings dedicated to PMBs ticks down. And currently there can only be one PBC in existence at a time to consider PMBs. So, unless the House agrees to set up a second PBC then the progress of the other ballot bills will be blocked if the 'assisted dying' bill spends much time in Committee.

Normally the Government provides ‘handout bills’ to MPs who have been successful in the PMB ballot. These are discrete pieces of legislation that the Government supports but which it did not find space for in the official legislative programme set out in the King’s Speech. The risk is that the 'assisted dying' bill so dominates the time available for PMBs in this Session that other legislative proposals make little progress.

Historically, the Private Members' Bill process has provided a path for debating ‘free vote’ moral issues. However, the combination of the limited time available - just 13 sitting Fridays - and the complex procedural rules mean that PMBs can pass into law with minimal scrutiny or be blocked despite their popularity. When it comes to the debate on assisted dying, neither of these outcomes is likely to satisfy supporters or opponents.

The biggest parliamentary event of this term will be the Budget on 30 October. This year’s Budget will not only make economic headlines but also history, as it will be delivered by the UK’s first female Chancellor. The focus will of course be on Rachel Reeves' statement about the state of the economy and the Government’s taxation plans. But keep an eye on the first ‘Ways and Means’ motion that the Government tables for the Budget.

Dozens of ‘Ways and Means’ motions are put forward to cover each proposed change in taxes and duties. However, only the first of these motions is debated and can be amended. It is technical but the format of this first motion is important. If it is a ‘motion for the charging of income tax,’ MPs can amend the motion only in relation to income tax (with similar consequences when MPs later scrutinise the Finance Bill). If it is an ‘amendment of the law’ motion, MPs have broader scope to propose amendments on other budget measures, such as tax administration, tax avoidance or tax reliefs. Traditionally, an ‘amendment of the law’ motion has been the norm, except in anticipation of Parliament’s dissolution or following a recent general election (just a few weeks after a general election, not as in this case nearly four months after the election). However, from 2018, the previous government opted to restrict amendments by favouring the income tax-focused motion, a choice criticised by some backbenchers and raised on their behalf with the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Procedure Committee in 2021-22. If the new Labour Chancellor chooses to adopt this recent practice, backbenchers’ already narrow rights to scrutinise and amend the Budget will continue to be limited.

Briefing continues below.

On Saturday, 2 November 2024, the Conservative Party will announce its new Leader. To get there, two more ballots of Conservative MPs are scheduled for 9 and 10 October to narrow the field from four candidates to the final two, who will then be voted on by the Party membership.

Once elected, the new leader will need to be ready for their first Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday, 6 November. In their first week the new Leader may also reshuffle the shadow cabinet. By then, select committee members may have already been appointed, but some may be chosen to join the new shadow cabinet, which could create vacancies on those committees and disrupt their early work. If so, a further set of elections will be required to fill those seats.

The timing of the leadership election also intersects with the ongoing Budget debate. The Chancellor is set to deliver her Budget statement on Wednesday, 30 October, to which the current Leader of the Opposition, Rishi Sunak, will conventionally respond. The Shadow Chancellor speaks on the second day of the debate; at this time, Jeremy Hunt will also still be in position. For the remaining days of the Budget debate, various Shadow Ministers are expected to represent the Official Opposition. As the Budget debate will still be ongoing at the start of the week commencing 4 November it may be unclear who will speak for the Conservatives as leadership transitions take place, and whether the new Leader of the Opposition will themselves seek to intervene as the debate draws to a close.

In late July, the Chancellor told the House of Commons that she had found a £22 billion in-year ‘black hole’ in the financial plans inherited from the previous government. To address this, she indicated that a new set of Estimates would need to be laid before the House. Estimates are the Government’s annual departmental spending plans, which must be approved by Parliament. These Government requests to Parliament for funds for departments are made in at least two and sometimes as many as four stages throughout the year, in a process known as the ‘Estimates Cycle’. Normally, the next step in the cycle would now be the ‘Supplementary Estimates’, when departments make requests for additional funding, for changes to existing allocations, or to change the purpose for which funds were sought. These are typically published in February and approved by March to ensure the money can be spent before the financial year-end.

If adjustments to departmental funding are required well before March, and if the financial gap cannot be covered by the Contingencies Fund, then the Government may have to introduce an ‘out-of-turn’ Supplementary Estimate – that is, a Supplementary Estimate presented other than in February – for the affected departments. These are unusual and only permitted in exceptional circumstances when urgent funds or increased cash flow are needed before the next normal Estimates round. According to the House of Commons Library, this has happened only twice in the past 16 years:

• in 2008, when the Treasury requested an additional £42.2 billion to cover the bank bailout during the financial crisis; and

• in 2022, when the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy sought £71.4 billion between them for additional support to cover the rising cost of energy bills and to cover losses from the Bank of England’s quantitative tightening programme.

If the House approves the ‘out-of-turn’ Supplementary Estimate(s) for the department(s) concerned, the Government would then present a Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill to provide formal legal authority for the decisions. Since the House has already agreed the Estimates, the Bill progresses without debate or amendment. How much time the Government allocates for the debate on the Estimates is therefore important. Since scrutiny of the subsequent Supply and Appropriation Bill is minimal, the debate is a vital opportunity for detailed examination. In 2022, only two hours were provided for this discussion. This year, the stakes are higher. Given the political controversy around the £22 billion ‘black hole’ more time may be needed. Such a constitutionally significant issue calls for a thorough and transparent debate.

The timetable for the election of Select Committee members by their party groups has not yet been announced but must be a priority this month, enabling these committees to begin their work quickly.

This is especially urgent for the Treasury Committee, which needs its membership in place to scrutinise the Budget at the end of the month.

The appointment of the members of the Petitions Committee will also enable the public e-petitions system to be re-opened for the first time since May when the last Parliament was dissolved for the general election.

Another key decision will be the appointment of the Chair of the Liaison Committee - the body composed of all House of Commons select committee chairs. This Committee is tasked with scrutinising the Prime Minister several times a year and offering a strategic overview of select committee activities throughout the Parliament.

The process of appointing its Chair was contentious in the last Parliament: will the new Government try to install its preferred candidate by a vote in the House, or will it allow members of the Committee to choose from among their number?

Given Labour’s dominance of the House of Commons and of the select committee chairs (they hold 18 of the 27 elected chairs), who is at the helm of this Committee and how they exercise its powers is more important than ever if Parliament is to hold the Government adequately to account.

New rules tightening the conditions under which MPs can receive payments for providing parliamentary advice were agreed by the House of Commons on 25 July and will come into effect on 25 October 2024. However, a related and potentially contentious issue remains on the table: whether MPs should be allowed to receive payment for ‘second jobs’ like media appearances, journalism, book deals, and public speaking. This topic is expected to be an early priority for the new Modernisation Committee, chaired by the Leader of the House of Commons. Any proposed ban on paid engagements is likely to face pushback from MPs – notably Nigel Farage MP - who have lucrative roles as broadcasters or contributors to outlets like GB News and LBC Radio.

In September, the Leader of the House presented a memorandum to the new Committee members outlining key principles and priority areas for the Committee’s work. Although the Committee's broad mandate is to consider and recommend reforms to Commons procedures, standards, and working practices, the immediate focus is expected to be on enhancing parliamentary standards, especially in light of the recent "freebie-gate" controversy that has embroiled Ministers and raised concerns among democracy campaigners and transparency advocates.

The memorandum highlights the need to respond to the recent review of the standards landscape by the Committee on Standards, assess the effectiveness of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, and streamline the work of various bodies handling issues of bullying, harassment, and abuse within Parliament and the political parties.

On the procedural side, the Leader of the House has indicated a desire to revisit how time and resources are distributed for backbench business, including debates, Private Members’ Bills, and petitions, while balancing these with the Government’s legislative priorities. This will be no easy task. In the last Parliament, the Commons functioned largely as a ‘two-and-a-half-day Chamber’, with many MPs heading to their constituencies by Wednesday. However, returning MPs should prepare for a busier House that operates from Monday to Thursday but with a possible reordering of parliamentary business across those days. In the longer-term radical changes to the parliamentary timetable may be needed if MPs decline to move out of the Palace of Westminster to facilitate the multi-billion pound restoration of the building. A vote on that is expected early next year.

The Chair of the Business and Trade Select Committee, Liam Byrne MP, has said he would explore all the options available to sanction Paula Vennells for allegedly providing misleading evidence in 2015 that may have interfered with or obstructed the work of the Committee. However, the timeline for any action remains unclear, particularly given the ongoing public inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal.

Once the Committee is fully established and begins work, this is likely to be one of the issues it has to consider as part of its plan of future work. If Byrne and his Committee wish to pursue the issue on grounds of contempt of Parliament they will need to seek the agreement of the House to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges for a full investigation. If that happens this will be a closely watched case, as it could set significant precedents for how Parliament deals with witness accountability.

By the end of this year, Northern Ireland must hold its first ‘democratic consent’ vote on the Windsor Framework - four years after the end of the EU transition period. Under the Withdrawal Agreement and the Windsor Framework, the Northern Ireland Assembly must vote on whether to continue accepting Articles 5 to 10 of the Framework, which relate to the application of EU single market regulations in Northern Ireland.

The process will be initiated in late October when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland formally notifies the First and Deputy First Ministers, as well as the Speaker of the Assembly. In December it is expected that the First and Deputy First Ministers will then jointly table a motion at the Assembly for democratic consent to continue applying the Articles.

Should the Assembly reject the motion, the Articles would cease to apply after a two-year transition period. However, what happens during those two years - including with any alternative provisions that might be considered - is unclear. If the motion passes with both a majority of Assembly members and cross-community support, Articles 5 to 10 will remain in effect, and the next democratic consent vote won’t take place for another eight years.

Conversely, if the motion passes with a simple majority, but without cross-community support (as is currently expected may be the outcome) the next democratic consent vote will take place in four years, but the UK Government will initiate a six-month independent review to assess the Windsor Framework and propose arrangements that might command cross-community support, which will need to conclude by the end of July 2025 at the latest. The report of the independent review must be laid before Parliament, and time may be made available for a debate. The Secretary of State then has a further six months to respond to the report.

A decision by the Northern Ireland Assembly to disapply Articles 5 to 10 would reopen the contentious debate about how to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, carrying significant constitutional, economic, and political implications. The outcome of this vote will therefore likely have a major influence on the future agenda of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee and possibly other select committees dealing with cross-cutting economic, trade and social issues. The effectiveness of the Northern Ireland Select Committee will largely depend on its composition, with representation from Northern Ireland’s political parties playing a crucial role in navigating what could be a very challenging first year.

There is much speculation about how a Labour Government might reshape the UK’s relationship with the European Union.

One key question to which we do not yet have an answer is the extent to which Ministers plan to use the significant powers bequeathed to them in the Retained EU Law (Reform and Revocation) Act 2023. Ministers must strike a balance between using these powers to change legislation across a range of policy areas by Statutory Instrument or by introducing new primary legislation. Importantly, once certain powers in the Retained EU Law (REUL) Act have been used to restate, revoke, or replace ‘assimilated law’ (formerly REUL) they cannot be reused, meaning the Government must be strategic in how it deploys them.

The third of six progress reports on reforming REUL (‘assimilated law’) is expected between 24 December 2024 and 22 January 2025, as required by the Act. The second progress report, published around the time of the general election, offered limited insight into the current Government’s plans and mainly reflected the previous administration's efforts. The King’s Speech indicated in relation to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill that Ministers are considering potential alignment with aspects of the EU regulatory framework deemed beneficial to the UK. Will Labour use the next REUL update report to set out its intentions in more detail?

Previously, these reports were sent to the European Scrutiny Committee, which Labour has since abolished, with no immediate plans to establish a replacement focused on EU affairs. Instead, scrutiny of EU-related issues is expected to fall to individual departmental Select Committees within their policy areas, and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) will likely take on reviewing the REUL reports as it shadows the Cabinet Office, now responsible for EU negotiations. However, there are questions about whether this dispersed and fragmented approach to scrutiny can be effective, especially when it comes to monitoring regulatory alignment with or divergence from the EU.

There is also uncertainty about whether the European Statutory Instruments Committee (ESIC) will be re-established in this Parliament. Created under a temporary Standing Order that expired at the end of the last Parliament, ESIC was given the role of sifting REUL-related SIs, a statutory responsibility that does not expire until June 2026. If the Government wishes to re-establish ESIC, the Standing Order must be renewed – or another committee will need to assume this ‘sifting’ task.

Labour’s manifesto proposal to enforce compulsory retirement for Peers at the end of the Parliament in which they turn 80 came as a surprise and received little prior discussion. However, it has sparked significant discontent in the House of Lords. Indeed, some newly-created Labour Peers - Baroness (Margaret) Beckett and Baroness (Margaret) Hodge - are already over 80 and would, if the policy were enacted during this Parliament, lose their place in the House after just a few years. Critics argue that the policy is a blunt tool, forcing out experienced and valued older Peers while allowing younger, less active members to remain.

The Labour group in the Lords is, on average, older than other party groups, so they would be most immediately affected. This comes amid existing concerns over their smaller numbers compared to the Conservatives. While the measure would reduce the size of the House, there remains the potential for new appointments by the Prime Minister to rebalance the numbers.

Labour has committed to consulting Peers on the retirement proposal, so while much attention this Session will focus on the bill to remove the remaining 90 hereditary Peers, it will be important to watch for how and when the Government engages with Peers on the retirement age issue. The outcome of this proposal will have significant implications for the make-up, balance, and effectiveness of the House of Lords and will test the Government’s approach to consulting and engaging with Peers, potentially influencing future debates on the role and structure of the House.

Towards the end of the 'remaining orders and notices' section of the House of Commons Order Paper, there is a motion in the name of the Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell MP, to establish a Speaker’s Conference with a critical purpose:

“To consider the factors influencing threat levels against candidates and MPs, assess the effectiveness of responses to such threats, and make recommendations for ensuring free and fair elections, as well as the proper protection of candidates during UK-wide parliamentary elections and of elected representatives thereafter.”

The motion is yet to be scheduled for a specific date, leaving the start of the Speaker’s Conference unclear. However, it is not confined to this session; it will have effect until the end of the current Parliament. The Conference will be chaired by the Speaker and include up to 14 MPs, appointed by the Speaker, making it larger than departmental select committees (which typically have 11 members). This larger size may allow for representation across smaller parties in the House. Like a select committee, the Conference will have the authority to “send for persons, papers, and records” and to appoint legal and other specialist advisers.

There have been only eight Speaker’s Conferences in history - the first in 1916 and the most recent in 2022–23 - and they have a mixed record of success. Convened under the Speaker’s guidance, these conferences typically address issues affecting the entire House, often focusing on matters relating to elections and representation.

The primary reason for this Speaker’s Conference is set out at the start of the motion: threats of violence faced by parliamentary candidates during the last general election were unacceptable, and once elected, MPs must have the ability to work safely.

The murders of MPs Jo Cox in 2016 and Sir David Amess in 2021 underscore the severity and reality of these threats. Of all the issues that the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, must deal with, the security of MPs is the one that he has said concerns him most day-to-day.

Candidates seeking public office must be able to speak and campaign freely and safely, without fear of violence against themselves, their staff, or their families. Intimidation not only jeopardises free and fair elections - a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy - but also impedes MPs' ability to represent their constituents effectively, especially in events like face-to-face surgeries. If these threats are not addressed, they risk chilling political debate and discouraging potential candidates from entering politics, weakening both Parliament and political parties.

These issues of violence and intimidation extend beyond Westminster, affecting democracies globally. The root causes are complex, involving political, social, economic and practical factors. How can the security of politicians be balanced with the principles of openness, accessibility, and free speech? Can MPs be protected both online and offline without infringing civil liberties or compromising forums for democratic engagement? And online threats are sometimes fuelled by foreign actors seeking to destabilise democratic institutions and electoral processes. The Speaker’s Conference will need to navigate these complex issues and competing political priorities to offer recommendations that can be implemented in time for the next general election.