Liz Truss's four autumn parliamentary challenges

Liz Truss entered Downing Street promising to “deliver, deliver, deliver”. But no prime minister can make good on their promises unless they have their own MPs on side. Despite a Commons majority of over 70, Truss has already had to make a several policy U-turn and sack her chancellor in the face of a rebellion by her own backbenchers – and other parliamentary headaches are on the horizon.  

This situation is partly the result of a longer-term fractiousness on the part of Conservative MPs. Since the 2019 election, the size of the Conservatives’ Commons majority has belied the difficulties that government whips have faced. While Boris Johnson avoided defeats on his agenda, he was repeatedly forced into concessions in the face of opposition from his own MPs, who showed their willingness to rebel – often more than once – across his government’s legislative programme.  

Truss's reshuffle saw many supporters of her former leadership rival Rishi Sunak removed from their government jobs, with 119 former ministers now on the backbenches. This was followed by a political misstep in the form of Kwasi Kwarteng's controversial 'mini-budget' that has caused considerable disquiet throughout the party – and which led to the sacking of Kwarteng on 14 October, followed by a statement from the new chancellor on 17 October announcing that most of the mini-budget package will be dropped by the government..

While Truss and her allies have issued threats about instilling party discipline, including mutterings about removing the whip from rebels, the mini-budget fallout – and the u-turns subsequently announced on almost the whole package – means MPs now know that they can force the government into reversing course. This leaves the prime minister in a weakened position, and she will have to accept that she is effectively governing like a minority. 

Here, we set out four key parliamentary challenges facing the prime minister and her agenda this autumn, and where the political and procedural flashpoints are likely to be – though the uncertain political and economic situation means that things may yet change.  

1. Truss will need to secure approval for the mini-budget and planned 'medium term fiscal plan'

Kwasi Kwarteng delivered his first fiscal event on 23 September – but most of the measures it contained have now been dropped by the government (other than on stamp duty and the repeal of the health and social care levy, which are currently being given permanent approval by parliament in two standalone pieces of primary legislation). The government will also need parliamentary approval for any further fiscal measures announced when Hunt unveils the ‘Medium Term Fiscal Plan’ (originally scheduled for 23 November, then moved forward to 31 October, with some measures also announced in a fiscal statement made by Hunt on 17 October).

When and how will measures set out in these fiscal events be approved by parliament? 

Fiscal measures are usually approved and put into law through a finance bill. But no finance bill – nor the founding resolutions needed for such a bill – was introduced to parliament following the mini-budget. The government will need to ensure that any tax measures announced in the mini-budget (and with which it intends to continue) or in the statement scheduled for 31 October, and that are due to take effect by the 2023/24 financial year, are passed into law by April. But within this, they have some flexibility about when they bring any finance bill forward.  

The most likely option is that the government will introduce a finance bill after the next fiscal event, allowing it to combine measures from that and the previous fiscal statements into one piece of legislation. But exact timings are unclear, with reports in the press that key votes won’t take place until 2023. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has indicated that the 31 October statement will not be a budget but will be “a bit” like a budget, suggesting that it will not immediately be followed by a finance bill.^[1]  

Ultimately, the government will have to legislate for any fiscal changes that it does intend to proceed with. The potential political difficulties they may have faced in doing this are now likely to be less, given that Truss and the new chancellor have opted to drop most of the 23 September package, including its most controversial aspects. It may be that these changes are enough to placate their MPs for now – but if the next fiscal event on 31 October and its accompanying OBR forecast are badly received, or again cause volatility in the markets, it is possible that the government could once again find itself facing rebellions on parts of a finance bil.

There has been some confusion about whether any defeat of the government on a finance bill would constitute a de facto loss of confidence by the Commons in the government. This ultimately depends on the specifics of any defeat. Historically, defeats of a whole finance bill – for example at second reading – have been regarded as a loss of confidence. But a defeat on a part of, or an amendment to, a finance bill would not necessarily be regarded as a loss of confidence unless it indicated that the Commons was rejecting the government’s economic and fiscal plans. 

How could MPs express opposition to any spending cuts announced by the government? 

The medium term fiscal plan (scheduled for 31 October) is also anticipated to contain announcements of major cuts in public spending. These would not be contained in a resulting finance bill (which focuses on tax changes, rather than spending). Nonetheless, most changes to spending levels that the government does announce will ultimately have to be approved by parliament – and this will happen via the annual 'estimates' process, with a supply and appropriation bill followed by votes on the main estimates in the spring.^[2] But procedurally, the opportunity for MPs to realistically change estimates is limited, and is in any case formally confined to reducing, rather than increasing, the amounts proposed by the government (as public expenditure can only be initiated by the government). This means that if MPs do have concerns over possible spending cuts, they will have to rely on political pressure to get the government to change course, rather than formal procedural means. 

Separately, some of the measures contained in the September mini-budget (on stamp duty land tax, and the repeal of the health and social care levy) will require parliamentary approval through other means, though these are generally less controversial with Conservative MPs, and so are less likely to cause major parliamentary headaches – unless MPs seek to use them to send a message to Truss about her broader fiscal policy.^[3]

2. Truss will need to reach a decision on the uprating of benefits 

Almost as soon as Truss U-turned on the 45p tax rate, the political debate shifted to the next flashpoint: decisions on uprating  benefits. Some MPs – and some cabinet members – have publicly made clear that they want certain benefits to increase in line with prices, rather than earnings. If Truss does not do this, it is likely to be another major flashpoint – though procedurally, one where her MPs are likely to find it harder to directly rebel, depending on the specific benefits in question. 

What are the rules and procedures for uprating benefits? 

By law, the secretary of state for work and pensions must review the rate of benefits each year. Certain benefits (including disability benefits like the Personal Independence Payment, as well as the Carer’s Allowance)[4] must be uprated in line with prices, under the terms of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. This is done via an uprating order – a form of secondary legislation that must be approved by the Commons and Lords, but which cannot be amended. This is unlikely to cause political problems. However, if the government chose not to update these specific benefits by prices, and instead did so in line with earnings, it would require primary legislation – which could well face a Commons rebellion.^[5] 

Other benefits, including Universal Credit and Jobseekers’ Allowance, have different rules and do not have to be annually uprated. Such benefits remain at their current levels until and unless the government decides to change them, in which case, ministers do so via secondary legislation. This means that if ministers opt not to uprate these benefits, there is nothing MPs can do directly, because no legislation would be tabled that could act as a vehicle for MPs’ discontent.

If the government decided to uprate these benefits but only in line with earnings, and not prices, there would be more scope for MPs to intervene, but it would still be limited. This is because the government would need to table secondary legislation – but the negative scrutiny procedure that would be subject to means MPs would only be able to try and object to the relevant piece of secondary legislation by tabling a motion known as a ‘prayer’ – they could not amend the government’s plans. It would be up to the government to allow MPs to debate and vote on such a motion, and it is vanishingly rare that such prayer motions pass. This would also be risky for MPs – because if the government was defeated on its plans, they would not and could not be compelled to bring forward a new piece of secondary legislation doing what MPs want and therefore benefits would remain at current levels, representing an even greater real-terms cut in what people receive than an uprating by earnings.  

Ultimately, the degree to which this becomes a problem for the government depends on what it decides to do on specific benefits. MPs are likely to find it harder to directly influence government policy because of the complex procedure around benefits uprating – but they may still be able to bring considerable political pressure to bear. And this could mean that they try and use other vehicles – like votes on other government bills – to demonstrate to the government their strength of feeling, effectively holding Truss’s agenda up until they get concessions on benefits.  

3.Truss will need to table new legislation on politically contentious issues 

Unsurprisingly for a prime minister taking office midway through a parliament, Liz Truss has committed to bringing a raft of new legislation forward that reflects her priorities – which are proving very different from those of her predecessor. But many of these new bills are likely to prove contentious with her own MPs, and so risk amendment or defeat. With eroded political authority, Truss could opt to bide her time to introduce this legislation, in the hope that she has rebuilt some relations with her MPs. But she will have to balance this with other risks: that her political position worsens further; or that she has fewer accomplishments to show to the public at the next election. 

Planning reform 

One priority Truss has emphasised is planning reform. This was mentioned in her conference speech; the chancellor also stated in the mini-budget that the government planned to bring a new bill forward on this in “the coming months.”^[6] Planning reform has already been tried in this parliament by Truss’s predecessor, and Johnson struggled. By the time his government introduced its Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, they had dropped some earlier proposals in the face of pressure from MPs (especially those representing seats in the south of England). ^[7] A new bill is therefore likely to resurface these problems and will be tricky to get through the Commons when Conservative MPs representing different parts of the country have very different views on planning and housing issues. 

Retained EU law 

Another new bill that may cause headaches is the Retained EU (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Already introduced to the Commons, it aims to end the special status that retained EU law has had in UK statute since Brexit. This means that almost 1,500 laws across everything from workers’ rights to environmental regulations need to be reviewed and then either replaced, repealed, or transposed into UK law. Truss has set an ambitious date for this process to happen – by the end of 2023 (although in some cases this may be extended to 2026). Politically, because the bill covers so many different areas, it is likely to generate considerable interest. Already, environmental groups have expressed concern about the impact, and if this translates into public pressure on MPs, the government may have problems. ^[8] The way the bill will work – giving wide-ranging powers to ministers to amend regulations – may also cause unease with some MPs.  

Fracking 

Elsewhere, the government may also be politically vulnerable on its position on fracking, although Truss’s decision to overturn the fracking ban is not anticipated to require primary legislation.^[9] Many Conservative MPs are opposed to shale gas exploration (including, according to statements made before he was chancellor, Kwarteng). This may again cause them to use legislation on other issues to make their views known; or even join with efforts by opposition parties to test sentiment in the Commons (for example, Labour are reportedly planning on using an opposition day debate to demonstrate a lack of Commons support for fracking, which would have no formal legal effect but would be politically damaging for the government). ^[10] 

4. Truss needs to deal with legislation left over from the Johnson government 

Though Truss plans to bring forward new legislation addressed to her priorities, she must also decide what to do with the bills inherited from Boris Johnson and currently in progress before parliament. So far, she has been quick to pause inherited bills that have proven unpopular with backbenchers – an early and positive sign, pre-mini-budget, that she was planning on improving relations. But the question of what to do with these bills cannot be ducked forever, and Truss will ultimately need to make difficult choices about whether to proceed with bills that may only worsen splits among her MPs. 

Online Safety Bill 

One example of this is the Online Safety Bill. Truss has indicated that she will take this legislation forward but is likely to alter it in the face of concerns from some of her MPs about its potential effect on free speech. While that approach would be welcomed by some, it has provoked criticism from other backbenchers, including the former culture secretary Nadine Dorries, who oversaw development of the bill.^[11]  

Bill of Rights Bill 

The same is true with the Bill of Rights Bill, which aims to repeal and replace the 1998 Human Rights Act. Currently paused by Truss ahead of its second reading, the bill was driven by former justice secretary Dominic Raab. Some Conservative MPs will welcome this, but there is also a political risk in ditching legislation closely associated with high-profile former ministers who are now sat on the backbenchers and able to cause trouble.^[12]  

Whatever Truss decides to do with these bills, she is likely to face political problems from her own MPs. This also speaks to a bigger and more fundamental problem facing the new prime minister, which is how she deals with the manifesto commitments that Conservative MPs campaigned on in the 2019 election. She will want to put her own stamp on the government’s legislative programme; but straying too far from bills to implement 2019 manifesto pledges is likely to cause consternation among her parliamentary colleagues.  

How could Truss change her approach to party management? 

Entering Downing Street, Liz Truss faced a difficult parliamentary situation – whatever the size of the Conservatives’ Commons majority might have suggested on the surface. Her party’s backbenchers had become increasingly restive under Boris Johnson, and with Truss not the choice of most Conservative MPs for leader, parliamentary management was always going to be difficult.

Initial steps like pausing some tricky and controversial legislation seemed to indicate that Truss was aware of the challenge and looking to reset relations with her backbenchers. But if that was the case, the reaction to the mini-budget quickly overrode it. By announcing such a politically difficult and divisive package so early on – and then doubling down on it and issuing threats about withdrawal of the whip, and then U-turning – Truss has eroded some goodwill and lost political authority. The question now facing Truss and her team is whether they can still get their agenda safely through parliament. 

The government’s control of the Commons order paper means that it will have some flexibility to adjust what bills are put to MPs when – allowing it to react to any further changes in the prime minister’s political situation. But it also cannot duck these problems indefinitely. Fiscal plans will need to be legislated for; the new bills that have been promised will need to make an appearance; and decisions will have to be made on what to do with legislation inherited from Johnson. 

To address these challenges Truss must first acknowledge the parliamentary reality that she faces – accepting that she cannot take her MPs’ votes for granted and must work to persuade them and buy them into her agenda. Dialling down speculation about threats and punishments for voting against the government will help. Better outreach and lines into her backbenchers – understanding their views and concerns – will be crucial, and reports that the prime minister is beginning to do this are welcome. ^[13]  

Truss may have come into office willing to be unpopular – but the problem with being unpopular among your own MPs is that it limits your ability to deliver.  

1. www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/04/rebellions-hold-votes-implement-mini-budget-will-not-take-place/
2. Some forms of government spending that are demand-led (e.g. some benefits that are linked to National Insurance contributions) do not go through the Estimates process.
3. Changes to Stamp Duty have been provisionally agreed to by MPs, but to have permanent effect will require a bill containing them to have its second reading within 30 sitting days of that provisional agreement. This is expected to be done through a standalone bill focused on Stamp Duty. The repeal of the Health and Social Care Levy is being carried out through a standalone bill, the Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill, which has already come before parliament and is due to receive second reading on 11 October.  
4. As well as Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance, Industrial Injuries Benefit, the Additional State Pension, and the Guardian’s Allowance 
5. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9439/CBP-9439.pdf
6. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-09-23/debates/6F82FA4B-DB6B-4E89-BA39-4ABEA1045ABF/TheGrowthPlan 
7. www.ft.com/content/a19272a3-4af0-438e-9b8b-bace6fbf1548
8. www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/23/uk-environment-laws-under-threat-in-deregulatory-free-for-all
9. www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/03/tory-mps-plot-to-avert-welfare-squeeze-after-u-turn-on-top-rate-of-tax-kwasi-kwarteng
10. www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/03/tory-mps-plot-to-avert-welfare-squeeze-after-u-turn-on-top-rate-of-tax-kwasi-kwarteng 
11. https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/furious-nadine-dorries-calls-election-liz-truss-broke-promise-keep-agenda-1891862
12. www.ft.com/content/9b0a32fc-980b-4f00-9cf5-6c3f29756800
13. www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/05/liz-truss-anti-growth-coalition-close-fractious-tory-party-conference?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=8b…