Publications / Briefings

14 things to look out for in Parliament this Autumn

4 Oct 2024
Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, the Prime Minister, addresses the House of Commons, 4 September 2024. ©House of Commons
Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer MP, the Prime Minister, addresses the House of Commons, 4 September 2024. ©House of Commons

When parliamentarians return to Westminster on October 7, all eyes will be on the Budget — the major parliamentary event on the immediate horizon. However, as the Government’s legislative agenda picks up speed and select committees get underway, there will be many other important developments to track. In the months ahead, we’ve identified 14 key issues worth watching closely, particularly as some of them may provide crucial signals about how this Government’s approach to and treatment of Parliament compares to its predecessors.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director , Hansard Society
Matthew England, Researcher, Hansard Society
,
Director , Hansard Society

Dr Ruth Fox

Dr Ruth Fox
Director , Hansard Society

Ruth is responsible for the strategic direction and performance of the Society and leads its research programme. She has appeared before more than a dozen parliamentary select committees and inquiries, and regularly contributes to a wide range of current affairs programmes on radio and television, commentating on parliamentary process and political reform.

In 2012 she served as adviser to the independent Commission on Political and Democratic Reform in Gibraltar, and in 2013 as an independent member of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee Review Group. Prior to joining the Society in 2008, she was head of research and communications for a Labour MP and Minister and ran his general election campaigns in 2001 and 2005 in a key marginal constituency.

In 2004 she worked for Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign in the battleground state of Florida. In 1999-2001 she worked as a Client Manager and historical adviser at the Public Record Office (now the National Archives), after being awarded a PhD in political history (on the electoral strategy and philosophy of the Liberal Party 1970-1983) from the University of Leeds, where she also taught Modern European History and Contemporary International Politics.

,
Researcher, Hansard Society

Matthew England

Matthew England
Researcher, Hansard Society

Matt joined the Hansard Society in 2023 to focus on the Society’s ongoing research into delegated powers and the system of scrutiny for delegated legislation. He also maintains the Society’s legislative monitoring service, the Statutory Instrument Tracker®. He graduated with a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from the University of Oxford in 2020 and an MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics and Political Science in 2021. Before joining the Hansard Society, Matt worked as a researcher for a Member of Parliament focusing primarily on legislative research.

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Subscribe to our newsletter

We will never share your data with any third-parties.

Share this and support our work

As the Government’s first 100 days in office approach on Saturday, 12 October 2024, attention is turning to the progress being made with its legislative agenda.

A key promise in the Labour manifesto was the introduction of an Employment Rights Bill within this period, aimed at delivering their ‘New Deal for Working People'. The Bill is expected to address issues such as 'fire and rehire' practices, zero-hours contracts, work-life balance reforms, and potentially roll back certain trade union measures introduced by the previous government. To meet the 100-day target the Bill must be presented for First Reading the first week back after recess. Press reports suggest it will be introduced on Thursday 10 October, the last parliamentary sitting day before the 100-day deadline.

However, there are concerns that this tight timeline may lead to significant policy details being deferred to later, through delegated or secondary legislation, rather than outlined in the Bill itself. This would grant ministers powers to enact changes at a future date via regulations, limiting Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and shape these measures. Both the Attorney General Lord Hermer KC and the Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell MP promised that the new Government would not "abuse" the use of secondary legislation and would uphold higher standards in lawmaking, implicitly suggesting a shift from their predecessors’ approach.

But rushing the policy development and drafting of the Bill to meet an unrealistic, self-imposed 100-day deadline is not an acceptable reason for Ministers to take powers for themselves (and their successors) to legislate at a later date - especially through a process that allows for less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation.

It would also set an early and worrying precedent: when a Minister wants to take such powers in a Bill against the clock in future, it will be politically easier to do so - the argument in favour will have been normalised, creating a 'ratchet' effect. Our decade-long research into the use (and misuse) of delegated legislation indicates that when policy details are not fully developed, Parliamentary Counsel often have to draft powers more broadly than necessary. This happens because, without a clear policy aim defined by Ministers, the drafters cannot accurately limit the scope of those powers. Watch for any ‘Henry VIII’ clauses, which would permit Ministers to amend or repeal primary legislation via Statutory Instruments — often a feature of bills with undefined policy details requiring extensive powers to accommodate all possible scenarios.

The emphasis on granting broad powers instead of providing detailed policy can also create ‘handling’ challenges during the parliamentary scrutiny process, particularly in the House of Lords. With a large number of new and relatively inexperienced MPs in the House of Commons, and Labour’s significant majority, concerns about the balance between primary and delegated legislation are unlikely to prove significant obstacles. However, the House of Lords, and specifically the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, will closely examine these powers, raise their concerns and possibly propose amendments to restrain the powers. Such scrutiny could delay the Bill’s passage, particularly if it results in a more drawn-out period of ‘ping-pong’ (when the bill is sent back and forth between the two Houses as they try to reach agreement on amendments to produce a final text). More time spent initially on policy details would mitigate these issues and reduce the prospect of delays in the legislative pipeline.

The Government has so far faced minimal resistance in advancing its early, relatively uncontroversial bills. But the Employment Rights Bill is just one of several complex and potentially contentious pieces of legislation on the horizon: other Bills could also test the Government’s unity and sap its political capital.

For instance, the planning reform bill is expected to draw the attention of a diverse array of stakeholders and lobbyists, particularly those targeting Labour MPs in marginal constituencies. Meanwhile, the ‘take back control’ bill will devolve new powers to local government in England and seek to reset the relationship between the UK Government in Whitehall and the devolved administrations. Labour must balance the interests and concerns not only of its MPs but also of its mayors and the party leaders and parliamentarians in Scotland and Wales as well as taking account of the political sensitivities in Northern Ireland. Additionally, bills inherited from the previous government may bring further complications. If the long-awaited Football Governance Bill, for example, is perceived to have been watered down, questions may arise about Labour’s relationships with football industry lobbyists, particularly given the recent football-related hospitality enjoyed by some Ministers in recent years.

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.

Parliament Matters podcast cover image. ©Hansard Society

Parliament Matters Podcast

Presented by Mark D'Arcy, former BBC parliamentary correspondent, and our Director, Ruth Fox, you can listen to our weekly podcast by subscribing via your favourite app.

©

Parliament Matters Bulletin

Subscribe to our newsletter to get this weekly 'look ahead' at what's happening in Parliament and why it matters, straight into your inbox as soon as it's published.

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.

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What's coming up in Parliament this week? 2-6 December 2024

Rachel Reeves will field questions in the Chamber, as her Bill to authorise the Budget proposals increasing National Insurance Contributions reaches its Second Reading debate. MPs will also discuss the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will face questions on the work of his office. The Government may introduce a money motion for the assisted dying Bill this week, allowing up to 45 minutes of debate, though it is not yet listed in the business papers. There may also be news on the appointment of members to its Public Bill Committee.

01 Dec 2024
Read more

News / How a British student has schooled the US Congress - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 58

In this special episode, we dive into the fascinating world of US congressional procedure with Hansard Society member Kacper Surdy, the once-anonymous force behind the influential social media account @ringwiss. Despite being a 20-year-old Durham University student, Kacper has become a go-to authority on Capitol Hill’s intricate rules, earning the admiration of seasoned political insiders. With Donald Trump hinting at bypassing Senate norms to appoint controversial figures to his cabinet, Kacper unravels the high stakes procedural battles shaping Washington.

04 Dec 2024
Read more

News / Assisted Dying Bill passes Second Reading: What next? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 57

From the emotional weight of the Assisted Dying Bill’s historic Second Reading to the first Cabinet resignation under Keir Starmer’s leadership, this has been a whirlwind week of high-stakes drama and political intrigue in Westminster. Nearly three million people have signed a parliamentary e-petition calling for another general election and it’s been a week of party defections and divisions. We unpack what it all means for the future of this Parliament.

29 Nov 2024
Read more

Briefings / The Assisted Dying Bill: A guide to the Private Member's Bill process

This briefing explains what to watch for during the Second Reading debate of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. It outlines the procedural and legislative issues that will come into play: the role of the Chair in managing the debate and how procedures such as the 'closure' and 'reasoned amendments' work. It looks ahead to the Committee and Report stage procedures that will apply if the Bill progresses beyond Second Reading. It also examines the government's responsibilities, such as providing a money resolution for the Bill and preparing an Impact Assessment, while addressing broader concerns about the adequacy of Private Members’ Bill procedures for scrutinising controversial issues.

27 Nov 2024
Read more

News / What's the point of petitioning Parliament? - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 56

It’s Parliament Week, and Ruth and Mark are joined by researchers Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Richard Huzzey to celebrate an unsung hero of Westminster: the petitioning system. Once on the verge of irrelevance, this mechanism has seen record levels of public engagement, sparking debates and inquiries on an avalanche of citizen-driven issues. Together, they explore how petitioning adds value for both petitioners and MPs, and what has driven this surprising revival of a centuries-old tradition in the digital age.

22 Nov 2024
Read more