The Chancellor of the Exchequer, John Healey MP, will deliver his Budget Statement on Wednesday, setting out the Government’s tax plans and his assessment of the economy.

The speech is only the opening act. The parliamentary process has four stages: the Budget Statement, four days of debate, the Budget resolutions (also known as ‘Ways and Means’ motions that become resolutions of the House), and the Finance Bill that turns the proposals into law. Our guide to how Parliament authorises the Government’s taxation plans explains each stage in detail or you can listen to our essential companion guide to the Budget process on this week’s episode of our Parliament Matters podcast.

Once the Chancellor sits down, the Government will move two motions which, once approved, will be resolutions of the House.

• Provisional Collection of Taxes: The first motion, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, allows specified tax changes to take effect immediately or overnight, preventing stockpiling or other attempts to avoid the new rates. It is put to the House immediately, without debate. This temporary authority expires unless MPs approve the related Provisional Collection of Taxes motion or motions within 10 sitting days. The Budget motions voted on at the end of the four-day debate usually include motions under section 1 of the 1968 Act. If approved, these give the specified tax changes provisional legal effect pending passage of the Finance Bill. A Provisional Collection of Taxes resolution can remain in force for up to seven months. However, it lapses if the Finance Bill does not receive its Second Reading within 30 sitting days.

• Ways and Means: The second motion is the motion on which the Budget debate formally takes place and only this motion is amendable. The subsequent Finance Bill is founded upon Ways and Means Resolutions, each authorising a new tax or change to an existing one. Dozens of Ways and Means resolutions, sometimes more than 100, may be required to implement a Budget, but only the first of them is amendable.

The Leader of the Opposition will then respond to the Statement, followed by other senior figures including Treasury Committee Chair Dame Meg Hillier MP and the Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey MP, followed by other relevant select committee chairs, party spokespersons, and senior MPs including former Prime Ministers and Chancellors who wish to speak.

The Government has allocated four days to the Budget debate: Wednesday 28 October, Thursday 29 October, Monday 2 November and Tuesday 3 November. Each day will have a theme or group of themes, chosen by the Government, but these have not yet been announced. At the end of the fourth day (next Tuesday), all the Ways and Means motions will be put to the House for decision.

Only the first Ways and Means motion can be amended and any amendments to that motion must have the effect of reducing the level of taxation because of the constitutional principle known as the ‘financial initiative of the Crown’. This precludes MPs from imposing taxes unless asked to do so by the Government. Backbenchers therefore cannot propose amendments to increase ‘a charge upon the people’, extend the objects and purposes of a charge, or relax the conditions and qualifications set out by the government when recommending a charge, as this would trespass on the constitutional preserve of the government. They can generally seek only to reduce a tax rate or enlarge a relief.

One procedural detail to watch out for on Wednesday is what form that first Ways and Means motion moved at the end of the Chancellor’s speech will take.

An Income Tax (Charge) motion (such as “That income tax is charged for the tax year [2027-28]. And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.”) would confine subsequent amendments at the Committee and Report stages of the Finance Bill solely to those matters covered by the Budget resolutions concerning the annual charging of income tax.

However, an Amendment of the Law motion (such as “it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance”) would give MPs greater freedom to propose alternative tax measures, although the Government may still attach some limiting conditions to the motion to exclude specified subjects such as VAT or income tax thresholds.

For many years, governments routinely moved an Amendment of the Law motion. It gave the Opposition an opportunity to put forward alternative tax proposals. But no government has done so following a Budget since 2018, a practice that has tightened ministerial control of the process.

The choice of motion will therefore be an indicator of the Government’s willingness to facilitate meaningful parliamentary challenge or whether they intend to set the scrutiny boundaries for their own tax decisions.

The Hansard Society has long called for the Amendment of the Law motion to be restored to the Budget debate to strengthen scrutiny of the public finances by MPs from across the House of Commons.

*** Go behind the Bulletin: learn to navigate Westminster’s papers. Each week, we unpack what’s coming up in Parliament and why it matters. Our Navigating Westminster online workshop will help you explore the detail yourself: how to read the Order Paper, track down reports and correspondence, and understand where parliamentary papers appear, when they are produced and what they tell you. Join the team behind this Bulletin to build your practical parliamentary research skills. 27 October 2026 · 9:30am–1:30pm · Online · Save 20%: book by 20 October with discount code EARLY20 · Find out more and book your place ***

↖ Contents

The Courts and Tribunals Bill receives its Second Reading debate in the House of Lords on Tuesday, after being rushed through its final Commons stages earlier this month. The Bill proposes significant changes to the criminal justice system, including restrictions on jury trials, expanded sentencing powers for magistrates, and alterations to court procedures.

The Government has abandoned its controversial proposal for judge-only Crown Court trials in cases expected to attract a custodial sentence of less than three years. But the Bill would still remove a defendant’s right to elect Crown Court trial for an ‘either way’ offence. It would also permit judge-only trials in some complex or lengthy cases, particularly those involving financial crime.

An important and controversial delegated power remains in the Bill. Schedule 1 would allow the Secretary of State, by secondary legislation, to add to the list of offences eligible for judge-only trial. The Commons Justice Committee recommended restricting this power so that only specific kinds of offences – those involving dishonesty – could be added.

But Tuesday’s proceedings will also raise a broader question: how should the House of Lords respond when important parts of a Bill have passed through the Commons without proper consideration?

After Second Reading, Peers will be asked to send the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House for its committee stage scrutiny. Labour Peer Lord Rooker has tabled an amendment that would prevent Committee Stage beginning until a Minister publishes a statement identifying the clauses, schedules and amendments that the Commons did not have time to consider.

Lord Rooker has pursued similar amendments to other Bills, using the Lords’ procedures to expose the consequences of Commons programme motions: significant provisions can pass without debate by MPs, while amendments fall when the allotted time expires before they are debated or put to a vote.

Lord Rooker’s concern is particularly pertinent in respect of this Bill. The Commons programme order required Report Stage to conclude at 6pm, although debate did not start until 3:30pm. MPs therefore had only two and a half hours to consider dozens of Government amendments that fundamentally recast the Bill’s core policy. The timetable was so compressed, and the Government amendments so extensive, that the Hansard Society’s Director, Ruth Fox, called for the Bill to be re-committed to the Public Bill Committee. This would have enabled MPs to look at the Government’s new proposals, including whether magistrates’ courts have the capacity and resources to shoulder the additional burden envisaged by the Government.

Lord Rooker’s amendment will not recover the scrutiny time lost in the Commons. But it would require the Government to account publicly for what the elected House did, and did not, have the opportunity to examine.

↖ Contents

The House of Lords begins clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Health Bill on Wednesday (28 October). The Bill would abolish NHS England, transfer many of its functions to the Secretary of State and other bodies, and restructure several other parts of the health system, including patient representation and safety oversight.

But a dispute has emerged over the powers the Bill would give to Ministers.

Clause 52 would enable the Government to establish a Single Patient Record through regulations. The record would bring together patients’ health information in a digital form accessible to authorised individuals and healthcare providers. But the regulations could also determine who may access that information, when it may be shared, and what protections apply.

The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is critical of this approach. In a report published on 20 October, it argues that questions of access, confidentiality and privacy are matters of fundamental policy. They should therefore be settled in primary legislation, where Peers and MPs can examine and amend the safeguards, not left for Ministers to determine later. The Hansard Society raised similar concerns when the Bill had its Commons Second Reading in June.

The Secretary of State would have to consult before making the regulations and ‘have regard’ to the need for adequate data safeguards before making the regulations. But, as the Committee observes, considering the need for safeguards is not the same as being placed under a legal duty to provide them. The Committee concludes that the provision is not fit for purpose and should be removed from the Bill unless it is substantially amended.

The proposed regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring debate and approval by both Houses before they can become law. But MPs and Peers could only accept or reject the package as a whole; they could not amend its individual provisions. That provides a much narrower form of scrutiny than including the rules in the Bill itself, where they could be amended.

Peers may not reach Clause 52 during Wednesday’s first Committee sitting. But 12 amendments relating to the Single Patient Record have already appeared on the Amendment Paper, seeking to place additional detail or restrictions on the face of the Bill. The argument over who writes the rules governing access to patients’ most sensitive information is therefore coming – even if the first skirmish lies beyond this week.

↖ Contents

An unusual parliamentary saga returns to the House of Lords on Thursday (29 October) when Peers debate the fate of the Malvern Hills Bill in Grand Committee.

The Bill is a Private Bill promoted by the Malvern Hills Trust, rather than the Government. It would consolidate the legislation governing the Trust, change the composition and appointment of its trustees, and confer new powers, including the power to issue fixed penalty notices.

Private Bills allow an organisation to seek changes to the law affecting particular local or private interests. Anyone specifically and directly affected may petition against the proposals and, if the Bill is opposed by at least one petition, put their case before a parliamentary select committee.

Such bills are generally narrow and uncontroversial. However, the Malvern Hills Bill has attracted 50 petitions, an unprecedented number in recent times, according to the committee appointed to examine it. Objections were made to the levy to be paid by residents in only some parts of the Malvern Hills Trust area, to reduced representation for elected and local authority members on the board, and in relation to public access to the land.

After Second Reading, Peers gave the select committee two unusual ‘instructions’ requiring the committee to consider questions relating to the levy, board representation and public access. Having heard evidence from both the promoters and petitioners, the committee recommended substantial amendments to the Bill, including alterations to the proposed balance between elected and appointed trustees. The committee reported the Bill back to the House, publishing both a special report and an amended version of the Bill in April 2026.

But the Bill is now stranded between parliamentary sessions. It began its passage in the previous parliamentary Session and, although the Lords agreed to carry it over, the equivalent motion was rejected in the Commons. Both Houses must agree before a private Bill can be carried over, so it cannot progress unless both Houses now agree to revive it.

If revived, the Bill would proceed to Third Reading in the House of Lords, before beginning its passage through the House of Commons.

Thursday’s debate, led by Baroness Coffey, is on the select committee’s special report, not on the Bill itself or a motion to revive it. The neutrally worded motion will not result in a formal vote, But the debate may reveal whether there is sufficient political appetite to rescue the Bill.

*** Listen to the latest Parliament Matters podcast episode – The Budget: Who checks the Chancellor? – Treasury Committee Chair Meg Hillier reveals how she prepares for Budget day and puts the Chancellor’s promises to the test. Our “cut out and keep” guide explores what happens after John Healey’s speech, explaining how the Government’s new tax announcements will become law. Plus, Darren Jones’s revealing account of battles over Whitehall reform prompts questions about constitutional safeguards, civil service accountability and whether parliamentary scrutiny can keep pace with the growing power of elected mayors. ***

↖ Contents

Three Church of England bishops will be formally introduced to the House of Lords next week: the Bishop of Durham on Monday (26 October), the Bishop of Bath and Wells on Tuesday (27 October), and the Bishop of Rochester on Thursday (29 October).

They will not be appointed as life peers. Instead, they will sit as Lords Spiritual, members of the legislature by virtue of the offices they hold in the established Church.

There are 26 places reserved in the House of Lords for the Lords Spiritual. Five seats belong automatically to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The other 21 seats are filled by eligible diocesan bishops as vacancies arise.

Rick Simpson, who was consecrated as Bishop of Durham in April, therefore becomes a member of the Lords because he now occupies the see of Durham. The Bishops of Bath and Wells, and Rochester enter under the arrangements governing the other 21 places.

Those arrangements have themselves been the subject of recent legislation. The Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Act 2025 gives eligible women diocesan bishops priority when one of the 21 places becomes vacant. The rule, introduced to accelerate women’s representation after they become eligible to serve as bishops, was extended under the Act to 2030.

If no eligible woman bishop is waiting, the vacancy is filled according to episcopal seniority. Two male bishops are entering through this route because all eligible women diocesan bishops have already entered the House.

The three new arrivals draw attention to a distinctive feature of the constitution. The Lords Spiritual are the only parliamentarians who sit automatically because they hold religious office, giving the Church of England a formal place in the legislature that no other faith or denomination enjoys.

↖ Contents

On Thursday (29 October), a Joint Committee of MPs and peers begins taking public oral evidence on the Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill.

The draft bill would create three criminal offences relating to abusive conversion practices, involving an attempt to change either a person’s sexual orientation or their transgender identity. It would also create protective orders designed to prevent such practices from taking place.

The Government has published the legislation in draft for consultation by Parliament, rather than immediately introducing a Bill. This gives the Joint Committee an opportunity to hear from experts and interested parties, test whether the proposals will work as intended and recommend changes before Ministers commit themselves to a final text and formally present it to Parliament.

Once a bill has been introduced, political positions harden, parliamentary time is limited and substantial changes become more difficult to secure. Pre-legislative scrutiny gives Parliament a good chance to influence the policy.

But the practice of pre-legislative scrutiny has become increasingly rare. During the 2010–15 Parliament, the Government published 35 pieces of draft legislation, compared with just nine during the entire 2019–24 Parliament. Since the June 2024 general election just three draft bills have been published for pre-legislative scrutiny even though the Government’s own guide to making legislation maintains the longstanding expectation that bills should be published in draft for scrutiny wherever possible.

The Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to scrutinise this draft bill has nominated Labour MP Alex Barros-Curtis as its chair and is expected to report by 22 January 2027. Ministers will not be bound by its recommendations. The real test of the exercise will therefore come when the final bill is introduced: how much of the Joint Committee’s advice will the Government have accepted?

↖ Contents

The House of Lords Constitution Committee continues its inquiry into the UK’s constitutional safeguards on Wednesday (28 October), asking whether laws, conventions and institutional checks provide sufficient protection against the misuse of executive power.

Much of the UK constitution depends not on enforceable rules but on political restraint: Ministers and other officeholders accepting limits on what they may do, even when they possess the legal power to do otherwise. But what happens when those exercising power decide that convention or established standards need not constrain them?

The Committee will first hear from Professors Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney and Vanessa MacDonnell of the University of Ottawa. Australia and Canada both inherited Westminster-style institutions but operate within written constitutional frameworks, offering useful comparisons with the UK’s more informal arrangements.

They will be followed by Danny Kruger MP, who is developing Reform UK’s proposals for overhauling Whitehall and Westminster. He has previously suggested that political appointees could occupy the most senior civil service posts and that the civil service might be reduced in size by around 40%.

The Committee has already heard from three former Cabinet Secretaries: Lord Sedwill, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Case; as well as Lord Young of Old Windsor, a former Principal Private Secretary to the Sovereign; and Dominic Cummings, formerly Boris Johnson’s chief adviser.

Their evidence has revealed sharply differing views about where constitutional authority lies and how effectively those who wield it can, or should, be constrained.

Kruger’s appearance will bring those questions into immediate political focus. If a future government politicised the top of the civil service and radically reduced its headcount and therefore its capacity, what institutional checks would remain? And would Reform UK seek to strengthen safeguards against executive overreach or expect its Ministers to be trusted with fewer constraints?

↖ Contents

Remember, parliamentary business can change at short notice so always double-check the Order Paper on the relevant day if you are interested in a particular item of business.

Library briefings for each day: Commons · Lords

2:30pm, Home Office Questions

3:30pm, Urgent Questions and Ministerial Statements, if any

Select Committee Statement by Dame Karen Bradley, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, regarding its inquiry on work-based immigration

Select Committee Statement by Patricia Ferguson, Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, regarding its report Securing Scotland’s future: Defence skills and jobs

General debate: Performance of Royal Mail (Chris Bloore and Davie Robertson, Labour)

General debate: Emerging risks of advanced AI (Ben Lake, Plaid Cymru)

Select Committee membership: motions to discharge members of 15 Select Committees and replace them with new members

Adjournment Debate: Jobs and employment opportunities in Staffordshire (Adam Jogee, Labour)

Westminster Hall: 4:30pm, e-petition 751472 relating to prostate cancer screening (John Lamont, Conservative); 6:00pm, e-petition 750612 relating to placing a requirement on drivers to report collisions with cats (Dave Robertson, Labour)

Delegated Legislation Committee: 6:00pm, The Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026

2:30pm, Introduction, The Lord Bishop of Durham

Oral Questions (40 mins): Environmental, social and governance rule reforms to ensure financial institutions cannot deny services to the UK defence sector; Government-approved list of AI tools that meet school safeguarding and data protection standards; Business plan for British Steel; Impact of tax-free shopping on the economy

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill: Report Stage

Grand Committee: 3:45pm, Railways Bill: Committee Stage (day 7 of 7)

↖ Contents · What’s On Monday: Commons · Lords · Committees

11:30am, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Questions

12:30pm, Ten Minute Rule: Developer contributions (infrastructure delivery) Bill (James Naish, Labour)

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill: Second Reading

Adjournment Debate: Co-ordination of services for children in care across local authorities (Josh Newbury, Labour)

Westminster Hall: 9:30am, potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as Intangible Cultural Heritage; 11:00am, SEND provision in rural communities; 2:30pm, delivery of council housing; 4:00pm, domestic farming and food supply; 4:30pm, the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report

Public Bill Committees: 9:25am and 2:00pm, Social Housing Bill: Debate; 9:25am and 2:00pm, Immigration and Asylum Bill: Debate

Delegated Legislation Committees: 4:30pm, The draft Renewables Obligation and Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme Excluded Electricity) Regulations 2026

2:30pm, Introduction, The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells

Oral Questions (40 mins): National coverage of fracture liaison services in England by 2030; the future of the International Criminal Court; improving joint working between the UK Government and the devolved governments in the delivery of public service; Meta's updated Commercial Terms, which from 30 October authorise it to crawl the websites of UK business users for the purposes of AI development

Armed Forces Bill: Third Reading

Courts and Tribunals Bill: Second Reading

Grand Committee: 3:45pm, Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026; debate on the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules in light of the 10th Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

↖ Contents · What’s On Tuesday: Commons · Lords · Committees

11:30am, Scotland Questions

12:00 noon, Prime Minister’s Questions

12:30pm, Budget Statement, The Chancellor of the Exchequer

Adjournment Debate: Flood resilience (Dr Ellie Chowns, Green)

Westminster Hall: 9:30am, Higher education funding; 11:00am, Government support for rugby league clubs; 2:30pm, Sentencing for causing death by dangerous or careless driving; 4:00pm, Performance of HCRG in the South West; 4:30pm, National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

Delegated Legislation Committees: 4:30pm, Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026; 4:30pm, draft Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026; 4:30pm, draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026

3:00pm, Oral Questions (40 mins): Access to Child Trust Funds on behalf of adults who lack mental capacity; Government assertion that vocational GCSEs will not disproportionally steer disadvantaged pupils towards non-academic pathways; Developing science on the adverse health effects of LED lighting

3:40pm, Health Bill: Committee Stage (day 1 of 7)

Debate: Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Grand Committee: 4:15pm, Debates on six sets of Regulations, one Order, and one Remedial Order

↖ Contents · What’s On Wednesday: Commons · Lords · Committees

9:30am, Transport Questions

Business Statement: Questions to the Leader of the House of Commons

Budget Debate (day 2 of 4)

Adjournment Debate: Government support for people impacted by sodium valproate (Cat Smith, Labour)

Westminster Hall: 1:30pm, Potential merits of mandatory safeguarded 24/7 helipads at major trauma centres; 3:00pm, the role and effectiveness of Ofcom

Public Bill Committees: 11:30am and 2:00pm, Social Housing Bill: Debate; 11:30am and 2:00pm, Immigration and Asylum Bill: Debate; 11:30am and 2:00pm, Highways (Financing) Bill: Debate

11:00am, Introduction, The Lord Bishop of Rochester

Oral Questions (40 mins): Business confidence among small and medium-sized enterprises in the AI sector; Impact of the Gwyndod Project on civil nuclear employment in Wales; Ofcom's register of categorised services and the Online Safety Act

Debate: Impact of mediation and conflict prevention globally, and the role of the United Kingdom in peacebuilding.

Question for Short Debate: The number of refugees that will be settled annually through community sponsorship

Debate: Implementation and impact of Personal Independence Payment

Grand Committee: 12:15pm, debate on Special Report from the Select Committee on the Malvern Hills Bill

↖ Contents · What’s On Thursday: Commons · Lords · Committees

Not sitting

Not sitting

Both Houses will resume at 2:30pm on Monday 2 November 2026. Our next Bulletin will therefore be published on Sunday 1 November.

↖ Contents

Help keep this Bulletin free for everyone. The Bulletin is free and we want to keep it that way. But as a charity we rely on donations to fund the research and production costs that make it possible. A small regular donation – even £3 a month, less than a cup of coffee – helps us keep this Bulletin freely available to everyone interested in Parliament. Donate here