MPs face a substantial scrutiny challenge when the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the Commons on Monday. More than a year after its introduction, just two days have been allocated to examine its 98 clauses and six schedules, to consider 156 Government amendments, and to complete all its remaining Commons stages.

The Bill would replace key elements of the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, including its controversial conditional immunity scheme. It would establish a reconstituted Legacy Commission with wider investigatory powers and a separate information recovery body.

The Government’s amendments are principally intended to strengthen protections for former members of the Armed Forces and police, without re-introducing the full immunity provisions set out in the 2023 Act. Among the most significant is a requirement for the Attorney General to consent to serious Troubles-related prosecutions.

Other amendments would require the Commission to consider whether witnesses are likely to possess new or compelling evidence before approaching them, would ensure that veterans have advance warning from the Ministry of Defence before being contacted by the Commission, and would require investigators and coroners to consider the operational circumstances in which service personnel acted. Ministers also propose an explicit statutory distinction between the lawful actions of service personnel and those of paramilitaries.

There is an important change in how the Government intends to repeal the immunity provisions. Following the High Court’s finding that parts of the 2023 Act were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, Ministers proposed using a Remedial Order – a special form of delegated legislation, available under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government published the draft Remedial Order, which would have repealed the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act, on the same day that it presented this Bill last year. However, following concerns raised by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Ministers now intend to legislate through the Bill instead. This gives MPs an opportunity to amend the repeal provisions, which a Remedial Order, being a form of delegated legislation, would not provide.

But how much scrutiny and time for amendment will this week’s timetable allow? The Bill will be examined by a Committee of the whole House, enabling all MPs to participate. In contrast, if it had been committed to a Public Bill Committee, only a small number of MPs would have been able to take part in proceedings.

Under the proposed programme motion, that examination must finish by 6pm on Tuesday, with Third Reading concluding no later than 7pm.

There will, in practice, be no separate opportunity to revise the Bill at Report Stage. If it is unamended in Committee of the whole House, it can proceed directly to Third Reading. If it is amended – as seems likely given the number of Government amendments that have been tabled – Report Stage will technically take place, but the proceedings will be a formality. Amendments for Report Stage cannot be tabled until Committee has finished, and the timetable provides no meaningful interval in which to do so.

There is a rationale for this approach: all MPs can participate in Committee of the whole House and amendments agreed there have already secured the support of the House. A separate Report Stage could therefore repeat arguments and votes with the same outcome. But it could also serve a distinct purpose, allowing MPs to reflect on the changes made in Committee, test their implications and propose further adjustments.

An entirely formal Report Stage following Committee of the whole House is not unusual. Here, however, the volume of Government amendments makes the compressed timetable particularly significant. As the Conservative opposition have argued, MPs face substantial changes to a complex and sensitive Bill with little time to examine them and no practical opportunity for a second look.

*** 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

Should the House of Lords conduct more of its business earlier in the day? On Thursday, peers will debate proposals to bring forward the starts of Tuesday and Wednesday sittings in the Chamber.

The House normally meets at 2:30pm on Tuesdays and 3pm on Wednesdays, with proceedings conventionally ending around 10pm. The Procedure and Privileges Committee is consulting on four options: retaining the existing timetable; starting on Tuesdays at 1pm; starting on Wednesdays at 1pm; or starting on both days at 1pm. Earlier starts would be accompanied by earlier finishes, normally around 8:30pm.

The implications extend beyond convenience. Sitting hours affect who can participate, how late into the evening legislation is scrutinised, and when the Government faces potentially difficult votes, the results of which may be affected by attendance.

Supporters of earlier sittings argue that late sitting hours impose particular burdens on members with caring responsibilities, on parliamentary staff, and on those facing long travel journeys home if they live outside London. Earlier finishes might help sustain attendance for legislative debates and divisions. Late votes can favour the Government, whose Whips are often better able to keep supporters in the House throughout the evening.

Opponents point to the distinctive composition of the Lords, with many peers combining parliamentary work with professional commitments outside Westminster. Later starts also leave more time for select committee meetings and external engagements.

The House rejected similar proposals in 2021 and 2022. Has opinion shifted?

Thursday’s debate will test the mood but will not settle the question. It takes place in Grand Committee on a “take-note” motion, with no vote at the end of the proceedings. Peers have until 13 November to submit their views to the Procedure and Privileges Committee, which will then make recommendations to the House.

↖ Contents

How well do people understand the UK’s constitutional arrangements, and are the rules themselves sufficiently clear and enforceable? Two Lords debates this week will explore these connected questions.

On Monday, Lord Norton of Louth will ask the Government what it is doing to enhance provision for the teaching of citizenship. The one-hour debate will take place in the “dinner-break” at around 7:30pm.

Ministers have announced plans to make citizenship education compulsory from age five in schools following England’s national curriculum, with the revised curriculum expected to be taught from September 2028. The debate offers an opportunity to examine what pupils should learn and how schools will be supported to teach it.

The stakes are heightened by concerns about political misinformation and foreign interference, alongside the Government’s plans to extend the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.

Later in the week, on Thursday, Lord Anderson of Ipswich will lead a half-hour debate on proposals for a written constitution.

The UK’s constitution is often described as “unwritten”, although much of it is recorded in legislation, in the Standing Orders of both Houses, judicial decisions, and other documents. What it lacks is a single, consolidated constitutional text of the kind found in many other democracies.

Peers are likely to explore several fundamental questions:

• Should codification preserve the existing constitutional arrangements or provide an opportunity to reform them?

• How could a codified constitution be given precedence over ordinary legislation, and what would that mean for Parliament’s legislative sovereignty?

• Would enforceable constitutional rights and procedures give courts a greater role in resolving disputes currently settled through politics?

• How could the constitution subsequently be amended: by an ordinary parliamentary majority, a special majority, or a referendum?

The debate will take place on a neutral motion, with no formal vote at the end. The Constitution Unit at UCL (University College London) has published two blogposts setting out the arguments in favour of and against a written constitution, authored by Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott and Lord (Jonathan) Sumption respectively.

↖ Contents

For newly elected MPs, winning a general election is followed by an intense scramble to establish offices, recruit staff, and obtain equipment, all while beginning parliamentary work and responding to constituents. For defeated and retiring MPs, the election brings the complicated task of winding down their parliamentary and constituency offices and supporting staff through the transition.

On Tuesday, the Commons Administration Committee continues its General Election Planning inquiry examining support for those entering and leaving the House in light of the 2024 general election.

Having already heard from newly elected Members, former MPs, and parliamentary staff, the Committee will question the institutions responsible for making the arrangements work. Witnesses include the Chief Executive and the Director of MP Services at the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), alongside the Head of Members’ HR in the House of Commons Administration.

IPSA independently oversees MPs’ pay, staffing, and business costs. The House of Commons Administration provides other practical services that MPs need to operate at Westminster, including induction and training. Effective co-ordination between IPSA and the Commons Administration is essential.

How quickly can incoming MPs recruit and equip a team? Do departing members receive timely advice about employment, payments, and office closures? And do gaps between the two organisations’ responsibilities make an already demanding transition unnecessarily difficult?

These arrangements affect how quickly constituents receive help and how effectively new MPs can begin scrutinising legislation and holding Ministers to account. The session will test whether the lessons of 2024 are being translated into better preparations for the next general election.

*** Listen to the latest Parliament Matters podcast episode – Parliament under pressure: Select committees in the age of lawfare – Are Commons select committees equipped to meet the new challenges facing parliamentary scrutiny? Liam Byrne MP joins us to discuss his review of the committee system, including protecting whistleblowers from “lawfare”. We ask how committees could strengthen scrutiny of public spending and EU relations. Plus, how might Andy Burnham now use his commanding Commons majority, and what could Ed Davey do to give his 72 Liberal Democrat MPs greater impact at Westminster in the months ahead? ***

↖ Contents

Two Private Members’ Bills in the Lords on Friday address substantial constitutional questions: replacing the second chamber and restricting the Government’s ability to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.

First on the Order Paper is the Second Reading of the House of Lords (Alternative Second Chamber) Bill, introduced by Plaid Cymru peer Baroness Smith of Llanfaes.

Labour’s 2024 manifesto committed the party to replacing the House of Lords with a second chamber more representative of the regions and nations. Ministers have pursued incremental reforms, including removing the hereditary peers, but have yet to set a timetable for wider transformation.

Baroness Smith’s Bill would require the Government to begin a consultation on an alternative second chamber within six months and to publish its response within six months of the consultation closing.

This proposal has already prompted an unusual display of resistance. When the Bill received its First Reading in June, some peers called out “not content”, registering early opposition at s stage normally treated as a formality.

The second Bill, the British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill, is sponsored by Lord Weir of Ballyholme of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

It would prevent the transfer or cession of sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory unless specified conditions were met, including obtaining the consent of the Chagossian people and securing express parliamentary authorisation through an Act of Parliament. It would also seek to preserve UK sovereignty over the military base on Diego Garcia.

The Bill challenges the approach underpinning the UK–Mauritius agreement, under which the UK would recognise Mauritian sovereignty over the archipelago while retaining use of Diego Garcia through a long-term paid lease. The Government’s previous implementing legislation fell at the end of the last Session, after the Government did not schedule its final stages, following concerns expressed by President Donald Trump.

Second Reading allows peers to debate the general principles underlying each Bill rather than examine its clauses in detail. It is very rare for the Lords to block a Private Member’s Bill at this stage, partly because the obstacles to completing the remaining stages are already formidable. Both bills may therefore progress on Friday, but securing sufficient parliamentary time and support, particularly in the House of Commons, would be a much greater challenge.

↖ Contents

MPs are expected to complete all Commons stages of the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill on Wednesday, with half a day allocated to its passage.

The Bill would remove nineteenth century statutory restrictions on who may advise the Crown on Church of England appointments (particularly of bishops). The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 prohibits Catholics from advising the Sovereign on such appointments, while the Jews Relief Act 1858 imposes a corresponding restriction on Jewish people. No equivalent prohibition applies to members of other faiths or none.

By convention, the Prime Minister formally advises the King on the appointment of Church of England bishops, although the choice is, in practice, determined through the Crown Nominations Commission. Because the Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is Catholic, that responsibility has instead for now been transferred administratively to the Lord Chancellor, allowing appointments to proceed without breaching the legislation.

The Bill would eliminate the religious restrictions and the need for this workaround. The Prime Minister has described it as “unacceptable for there to be a legislative bar against people of any faith performing all the functions of my office”. The Bill would otherwise leave the Prime Minister’s powers over Church appointments unchanged.

The parliamentary interest lies particularly in the speed of proceedings. A Business of the House motion agreed on 15 October allows amendments to be tabled before the Bill has received its Second Reading, something the Commons’ normal rules would prevent, so that MPs can proceed straight through the subsequent stages. The Bill must also pass the House of Lords before becoming law.

The measure is short and its purpose is relatively narrow. MPs will nevertheless be asked to amend part of the historic relationship between the Crown, its Ministers, and the established Church in a single afternoon.

↖ Contents

On Tuesday, Labour MP Dr Simon Opher will lead a one-hour Westminster Hall debate on House of Lords reform. The discussion may focus as much on how peers use their powers as on who should sit in the second chamber.

Dr Opher, a GP, was a prominent supporter of legalising assisted dying, and served on the Public Bill Committee that scrutinised the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. He strongly criticised the Lords’ handling of the Bill, arguing that a handful of opponents used “delay tactics and filibustering” to block it and that the peers “should not be able to block legislation backed by MPs”.

He subsequently established, and chairs, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on House of Lords Reform, which aims to “explore proposals to enhance the effectiveness, legitimacy, and democratic accountability of the UK’s second chamber”.

The debate therefore raises questions beyond the familiar arguments about appointments, elections, and the size of the House. Should reforms also address how peers scrutinise legislation, manage debate, and exercise their power to delay bills? And how should the balance of power between effective Lords scrutiny and the primacy of the elected Commons be maintained?

Westminster Hall debates cannot produce binding decisions, but the Minister’s response may offer clues about the Government’s priorities. The discussion also comes three days before peers consider a Private Member’s Bill requiring consultation on an alternative second chamber, placing the question of how the Lords operates alongside the larger debate about what might replace it.

↖ 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, Defence Questions

3:30pm, Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Committee Stage (day 1 of 2)

Adjournment Debate: Potential merits of Government support for Glasgow School of Art's Mackintosh Building (Torcuil Crichton, Labour)

Westminster Hall: 4:30pm, e-petition 764553 relating to sentence reductions for guilty pleas in controlling or coercive cases

Delegated Legislation Committees: 6:00pm, Electrical Safety Standards in the Rented Sector; 6:00pm, Travellers’ Allowances; 6:00pm, Lung Disease Lump Sum Payments

2:30pm, Oral Questions

3:10pm, Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Committee Stage (day 2 of 3)

Interrupted around 7:30-8:30pm for Question for Short Debate: What steps the Government are taking to enhance provision for the teaching of citizenship

Grand Committee: 3:45pm, Railways Bill: Committee Stage (day 5 of 7)

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

11:30am, Health and Social Care Questions

12:30pm, Ten Minute Rule: Social Security (Marriage) Bill to prohibit recognition of polygamous and close-relative marriages (Richard Holden, Conservative)

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Committee Stage (day 2 of 2) and Remaining Stages

Adjournment Debate: Impact of the East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge business case on North Bedfordshire constituency (Richard Fuller, Conservative)

Westminster Hall: 9:30am, manufacturing skills; 11:00am, long duration electricity storage systems; 2:30pm, Heathrow Airport expansion; 4:00pm, the potential merits of statutory paid employment leave for kinship carers; 4:30pm, House of Lords reform

Public Bill Committees: 9:25am and 2:00pm, Sporting Events Bill: Debate; 9:25am and 2:00pm, Immigration and Asylum Bill: Debate; 9:25am and 2:00pm, Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill: Debate

2:30pm, Oral Questions

3:10pm, Commercial Payments Bill, Third Reading

Armed Forces Bill, Report Stage

Grand Committee: 3:45pm, Debate on UK–EU Agreement in respect of Gibraltar

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

11:30am, Northern Ireland Questions

12:00 noon, Prime Minister’s Questions

12:30pm, Ten Minute Rule: Multi-academy Trusts (Governance) Bill (Dave Robertson, Labour)

Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill: All Stages

General Debate: Opposition day (fourth allotted day, first half): Liberal Democrats

Adjournment Debate: Mineworkers' pension schemes in Nottinghamshire (Steve Yemm, Labour)

Westminster Hall: 9:30am, the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes; 11:00am, the future of University Hospital of North Tees; 2:30pm, the performance of Royal Mail; 4:00pm, Government support for housing costs; 4:30pm, Government support for community policing

Public Bill Committee: 9:25am, Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill: Debate

Delegated Legislation Committees: 2:30pm, Northern Ireland Voter Identification Documents; 4:30pm, Town and Country Planning Fees

3:00pm, Oral Questions

3:40pm, Public Office (Accountability) Bill: Committee Stage (day 3 of 3)

Grand Committee: 4:15pm, Railways Bill: Committee Stage (day 6 of 7)

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

9:30am, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Questions

10:10am, Questions to the Church Commissioners, the House of Commons Commission, and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission

10:30am, Tributes to the Clerk of the House

General Debate: Black History Month

Adjournment Debate: NHS maternity services (Ian Roome, Liberal Democrat)

Westminster Hall: 1:30pm, compensation for Equitable Life policyholders; 3:00pm, the legacy of the Jarrow Crusade on the 90th anniversary

Public Bill Committees: 11:30am and 2:00pm, Sporting Events Bill: Debate; 11:30am and 2:00pm, Immigration and Asylum Bill: Debate; 11:30am and 2:00pm, Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill: Debate

11:00am, Oral Questions

11:40am, Debate: The effect of artificial intelligence, screen usage and social media on children

Question for Short Debate: At what age do the Government consider it appropriate for an individual to be able to consent to the administration of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones

Debate: Proposals for a written constitution

Grand Committee: 12:15pm, debate on the consultation relating to the sitting times of the House

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

Not sitting

9:30am, Private Members’ Bills: House of Lords (Alternative Second Chamber) Bill (Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, Plaid Cymru); British Sovereignty Protection (Chagos Islands) Bill (Lord Weir of Ballyholme, DUP)

↖ Contents · What’s On Friday: Lords

Both Houses will resume at 2:30pm on Monday 26 October 2026. Our next Bulletin will therefore be published on Sunday 25 October.

↖ 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