And honourable members and noble lords are off on another break next week, returning on 3 June. But they do manage to cram in a fair bit of activity afore they go....with the focus of the Commons action the report and third reading stages of the Marriage (Same Sex Coupes) Bill.

The government's now in a bit of a tangle, because of fears that an amendment supported by Labour and by Conservative backbenchers, to allow heterosexual couples to sign up for the civil partnerships already available to gay couples, could trigger a multi-billion pound avalanche of new costs for pension schemes.

The cabinet minister in charge, Maria Miller, has already announced she'll bring forward amendments on the issue, and the situation will probably develop further, over the weekend.

Monday in the Commons (at 2.30pm) begins with Work and Pensions questions, and then, assuming no ministerial statements or urgent questions, MPs begin their detailed scrutiny of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. This is the first of two report stage days, with amendments grouped into several subjects - (a) sex education, (b) conscientious or other objection to marriage of same sex couples, (c) equality law, (d) religious organisations' opt-in to marriage of same sex couples, and (e) protection against compulsion to solemnize marriages of same sex couples or to carry out activities in relation to the solemnization of such marriages.

In particular, watch out for this proposal to amend the 2004 Civil Partnership Act, to leave out the words "of the same sex", and thus allow heterosexual civil partnerships. An eclectic coalition of MPs have signed this including arch-critics of the bill Tim Loughton and Stewart Jackson, the SDLP's Mark Durkan, Green MP Caroline Lucas and Lib Dem Greg Mulholland.

Up on the committee corridor there's the first meeting of the new Energy and Climate Change sub-committee on local energy (2pm) looking at the contribution small and medium-sized projects could make to the UK's energy supply, and at barriers to medium-sized and community-owned projects. The witnesses include experts from the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the UK Energy Research Centre, and the Combined Heat and Power Association.

The Public Accounts Committee (at 3.15pm) takes time out from chastising big companies over their tax arrangements to revisit a golden oldie - the troubled programme to provide the Navy with new aircraft carriers and strike capability. This time they're focusing on the chopping and changing over the precise aircraft which will fly from the new carriers on the distant day when they become operational. The committee will be following up this report from the spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, with assorted Ministry of Defence Officials and the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff.

The Transport Committee (4.05pm) looks at the impact of claims for whiplash on the cost of motor insurance - with medical witnesses and the insurance industry. The Communities and Local Government Committee (4.10pm) rounds off its inquiry into the private rented sector with the Housing Minister Mark Prisk. Then they turn to a new inquiry into community budgets (from about 5.10pm) looking at progress in various initiatives to coordinate different strands of public spending in particular neighbourhoods, as well as the Troubled Families Programme.

And the super-committee on the National Security Strategy (4.30pm) hears evidence on the UK's, er, National Security Strategy from a series of distinguished experts including Professor Mike Clarke, the director general of RUSI; Sir Stewart Eldon, the former UK Permanent Representative to Nato and Dr Robin Niblett, the director of Chatham House.

In the Lords (from 2.30pm) questions to ministers range across increasing sports in schools, asylum seekers' right to work in the UK after six months of waiting for a decision on their application - and the proportion of deaths recorded as caused by cancer where the actual cause of death was the treatment.

Then peers get their teeth into some of the new bills announced in the Queen's Speech - first is the Offender Rehabilitation Bill which deals with the release and post-release supervision of offenders, including the plan for a year's guaranteed supervision. Justice Minister and Lib Dem Leader Lord McNally leads for the government.

That's followed by the second reading of the Mesothelioma Bill - which sets up payments scheme to help workers who were exposed to asbestos as a result of negligence by their employer. The problem is that they may not develop diffuse mesothelioma until years, even decades later, but once diagnosed, the condition is terminal.

It may not be possible to determine which employer was responsible, and even if it is, the company in question might have been wound up, long before. The bill sets up a limited scheme which will make payments to people with diffuse mesothelioma and dependants of those who have died from it. They'll be eligible for a payment if they were first diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 25 July 2012, when the government began its consultation on the issue.

Tuesday

The Commons sits at 11.30am for Justice questions - and then comes the second day of the report stage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill which will be followed by the third reading debate (see above).

The adjournment debate sees former Communities and Local Government minister Bob Neill raising the increasingly common phenomenon of supermarkets taking over the sites of pubs - his subject is "the proposals of Lidl UK to demolish the Porcupine public house, Mottingham". After which MPs are off on recess until Monday 3 June.

Meanwhile in Westminster Hall (9.30am -5pm) there will be a series of debates led by backbenchers - my eye was caught by the last two debates: Labour's Alex Cunningham discusses the armed forces recruitment age from 4pm to 4.30pm, and then the Conservative Damian Collins raises the question of marine conservation zones.

There's a decent helping of committee action: the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, is the star witness at the Justice Committee inquiry into the work of the Crown Prosecution Service (9.30am). The British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and the British Council of Shopping Centres give their thoughts on the UK retail sector at the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (9.30am) and paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson joins former Olympics minister Tessa Jowell before the Education Committee to talk about school sports following London 2012 (9.30am).

There's an ultra-topical session of the Health Committee (9.30am) looking at emergency services and emergency care. This first evidence session on emergency services and emergency care has been brought forward because of rising concern, and because another inquiry into the workings of the new NHS structure in England is discovering that it's too early to gather worthwhile evidence. The witnesses include Dr Patrick Cadigan of the Royal College of Physicians, Dr Mike Clancy of the College of Emergency Medicine and and Mike Farrar, chief executive of the NHS Confederation.

The Treasury Committee (10am) takes a look at the government's new approach to using the private sector in the delivery of public infrastructure and services, Private Finance 2. Lord Deighton, the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, and Geoffrey Spence, the chief executive of Infrastructure UK, will be asked if the new version of PFI deals with the concerns the committee raised in its report on the original version, in July 2011.

The Energy and Climate Change Committee (at 10am) looks at the environmental implications of bioenergy - growing plants for fuel, both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and land use. Does it genuinely reduce carbon emissions; the question of whether it crowds out food production, and the impact on air quality, biodiversity and water resources? Witnesses include the RSPB, the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, and industrial users. In the afternoon they have another session, this time focusing on energy prices, profits and poverty with witnesses from Ofgem and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The committee's analysing energy prices, energy company profits and fuel poverty to see if consumers, particularly those on low incomes are being treated fairly.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee (10.30am) continues its post Leveson look at press regulation - with senior newspaper industry witnesses; and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (3pm) continues its investigation into food contamination with witnesses from the EU Directorate General for Health and Consumers.

Across in the Lords (from 2.30pm) ministers face questions on the UN Arms Trade Treaty, public awareness of the UK's £46bn annual trade deficit with the EU and the G8 meeting on 17 June. Then peers turn to the debut of another important piece of legislation - the second reading of the Care Bill - which reforms the system for social care and support for adults, support for carers, the safeguards against abuse and neglect. It's a bill which could touch every family in the land.

Wednesday

The Commons end of Westminster will be deserted - but the Lords legislate remorselessly on. They open for business at 11am with questions on daylight saving time and road deaths, the circumstances which might justify an escalation of action against the regime in Syria and the extension of the Public Lending Right to e-books and audio books.

Then it's on to more new legislation, starting with the second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill, followed by the second reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill which abolishes the Audit Commission. After which peers take a break till 3 June, as well.

He told me he would consult with colleagues and his constituency (Stockton South) before deciding whether to pick up the Conservative draft bill on an EU referendum.

That consultation didn't take very long - he has said that he is picking up the bill and will lead the charge.

With a micro-majority, it will probably do him no harm at all to have a spell in the spotlight. The bill will take over his life for months to come. It's quite a gig for a new intake backbencher.

There are several other Conservatives who placed high on the list - Jonathan Lord, Dan Byles, Karl McCartney and Sheryll Murray.

And one of the other possible manoeuvres to keep the bill alive is for them to bring forward their own bills on whatever subject; but if necessary yield up their debating time to Mr Wharton.

Arch getter-out Douglas Carswell has already tweeted that God must be a eurosceptic, too. There's certainly plenty of scope for a referendum bill here, with the added advantage that the MPs who normally use every procedural wile to block private members' bills - the Chopes, Davies, Nuttalls etc - actually support this one...

So there will be plenty of smart tactical advice available.

Eyes down for a classic of Commons manoeuvre and counter manoeuvre!

He's allowed not two, but three amendments to the motion on the Queen's Speech to be voted on today. A slightly bemused Leader of the Commons, Andrew Lansley, politely asked if he would set out the "application of the terms of standing order 33 relating to the number of amendments that are selectable…"

Because up to now everyone (including me, in an earlier post) assumed the rules only allowed for two amendments to be called.

With the solemn glee of a Supreme Court judge extending the law, Mr Speaker was glad to oblige:

"….I believe that there is a need to interpret Standing Orders in way that facilitates the business of the House in a developing parliamentary context; conditions and expectations today are very different from those in October 1979 when that standing order was made - I have studied the wording of SO 33 very carefully - my interpretation is that the words that a further amendment in fifth line may be interpreted as meaning more than one amendment successively - in other words only one amendment is being moved at any time, once disposed of a further amendment may be called…"

This matters quite a lot. It seems the Speaker is not going to interpret the rules, in future, in a way that carves significant factions in the Commons, or the smaller parties, out of debates.

A number of viewpoints will in future be express-able in Commons debates. This is good news for the smaller parties, who've always hated the rules which always forced them to choose between Conservative and Labour views on any given subject, even if they had no particular liking for either.

But more than that, it's good news for significant factions in the House, who want a particular view debated…in this case, supporters of an EU referendum. The advent of the Backbench Business Committee has already allowed such groups to bring a non-binding motion to the floor of the House, but this ruling ratchets up their ability to get Commons votes that are a bit more than merely symbolic.

It looks a bit like preparation for more multi-party hung parliaments where there will be a series of competing viewpoints - who may want to say "maybe", or "yes but," rather than simply vote aye or no to every question.

It will be interesting to see if this precedent is extended beyond the once-a-year context of a Queen's Speech debate…the anxious look on Mr Lansley's face suggested that he, as the minister in charge of getting the government's legislation through the Commons, feared it might be.

I'm going to sniff around this a bit more and I'll report back…

The decision won't be made until the Wednesday morning meeting, when John Bercow and his inner cabinet of clerks and deputies go through the day's business, but on the normal criteria, it seems highly likely that the amendment will be called.

Does it have a lot of support? Yes. Is that support cross-party? Yes. Is it an amendment which adds some new dimension to the debate? Yes.

And lurking in the back of Mr Speaker's mind will be the point that the Commons would look pretty silly if it didn't discuss the issue now dominating the national agenda.

There are a couple of other points about the amendment. First of all it's tactically quite important that it should attract more support than the motion sent for debate by the Backbench Business Committee in October 2011 - 81 Tory votes against the whip - to show that support for a referendum is still growing on the backbenches. That total of 78 includes a number of Labour and DUP names.

Second, the threat that some backbencher might pick up David Cameron's promised draft bill on a referendum and try to enact it as a private member's bill becomes a lot more credible if there are 100 MPs implicitly signed up to support it. Remember a private member's bill needs 100 MPs as a shield against a filibuster, to support a closure motion and move it to an actual vote.

And if such a bill is put down (and we won't know until we see the outcome of the private members' bill ballot on Thursday) expect a master class on parliamentary manoeuvre to follow....

Most of the names attached to it so far are pretty predictable - although former leadership contender David Davis picks his battles pretty carefully, so his appearance in the list is significant.

But it will be worth watching to see if UKIP's strong showing in the county elections results in some MPs supporting the amendment to protect their position in their constituency....

Will there be a correlation between UKIP council gains and sudden outbreaks of backbench euroscepticism from previously quiescent Tories?

Of course, the amendment will almost certainly be defeated, pretty comfortably, and would not bind the government to hold a referendum, even if won. But a major rebellion - and the prospect of future amendments to actual legislation, or a private members' bill to hold a referendum (see Thursday's entry, below) - would signal a very difficult year for the government in the Commons. To put it mildly.

There are several different currents of opinion on the Conservative benches on the exact form any referendum, but I think the broad demand that the Conservatives should push for some kind of vote before the next election (if only to flush out Labour and the Lib Dems into opposing it) unites them all.

Here's next week's rundown:

Monday

The Commons convenes at 2.30pm for another day's debate on the Queen's Speech - where the theme will be Health and Social Care, one of the major bills in the government's programme.

The rather unpromising looking adjournment debate on "Cleveland Fire Authority mutualisation" led by Middlesbrough Labour MP, Tom Blenkinsop, could actually prove to be rather interesting and important. The government is keen to encourage workers in public services to form mutual companies to deliver them, as a way of encouraging greater efficiency, flexibility and employee engagement in delivering better services. The Chief Fire Officer and government have been looking at a "mutualisation" model for the Cleveland Fire Service.

And Mr Blenkinsop warns that the original assurance by ministers that this isn't privatisation by the backdoor has been undermined by revelations that any mutualised fire authority would have to allow private sector tendering because of European procurement legislation. He fears mutualisation will expose English fire services to private sector take over.

In the Lords (from 2.30pm) they are holding a daily question time - and the subjects to be raised include some topical issues: steps to improve the implementation of the NHS 111 service, UK clothing sector retailers ensuring that people working throughout their supply chains enjoy safe and secure working conditions and the proposals by the newspaper industry for an alternative regulation system - that one comes from Leveson Report supporter and former Conservative party chairman Lord Fowler.

Then peers move on to their debate on the Queen's Speech - where their subject of the day is business, economy, local government and transport.

Tuesday

The Commons meets at 11.30am when question time will be back - in the form of Treasury Questions. The theme for the day's Queen's Speech debate is the cost of living. And the day ends with an adjournment debate led by the Conservative Charlotte Leslie on "Enforced monopolies in council sport provision". She's unhappy about Bristol City Council's policy towards swimming clubs - an issue which she warns could undermine the Olympic legacy.

In the Lords (from 2.30pm) questions to ministers range across local authorities requiring bailiffs to pay them part of the fees charged to debtors, and a levy on single use plastic bags in England. Then the debate on the Queen's Speech focuses on agriculture, culture, education, energy, health and welfare.

Wednesday

The Commons meets at 11.30am for Welsh questions, and then, at 12pm, prime minister's question time. (It's worth noting this is the first PMQs since 24 April - and David Cameron won't face another one until 5 June, because MPs will depart for their Whitsun recess on Tuesday 21 May. They than face a marathon seven weeks without a break - departing for the summer on 18 July.)

After PMQs, the debate on the Queen's Speech focuses on economic growth - this is the point at which amendments, from Labour and, possibly from rebel Tory backbenchers, will be voted on. Could this be the first rebellion of the new Parliamentary year....just one week in? Incidentally, Labour's line is that they think the focus should be on jobs and economic growth - and that the UK should be pressing for reform in the EU, not threatening to leave. They're coy about their whipping policy on the day - but that rather suggests they'll vote against.

The day ends with an adjournment debate on dangerous dogs and Jade Lomas Anderson. Following the death of Jade, a 14-year-old constituent in Bolton West, Labour's Julie Hilling is campaigning for proposed changes to the law on dangerous dogs to go further than simply making it possible to prosecute owners for attacks on private property. She argues measures, including compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs and Dog Control Notices, are needed to tackle the irresponsible owners before an incident takes place.

In the Lords (from 3pm) questions to ministers cover the new under-occupancy rule for housing benefit and budgetary support to developing countries in 2013-14. The theme for peers' final day of debate on the Queen's Speech is defence, foreign affairs and international development.

Thursday

Before MPs gather in the chamber there'll be more attention than usual focused on the annual ballot for debating time for private members' bills - because there's a chance that one of the winners will seize the chance to put down a bill for an EU referendum. It all depends which name is drawn out of the hat - in a slightly sexed-up ceremony which will involve the names been drawn out in reverse order, so the MPs with the lowest priority will be announced first, allowing suspense to build towards the announcement of the honourable member who'll be in poll position. The ballot starts at 9am.

When the Commons meets at 9.30am the first business is Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Questions, followed by a series of shorter questions directed at the MPs who speak for an assortment of outside bodies; the Church Commissioners, the Public Accounts Commission and Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. That is followed by the weekly announcement of forthcoming Commons business, by the Leader of the House, Andrew Lansley.

The main debate of the day, chosen by the Backbench Business Committee, is a debate on mental health - an issue raised by backbenchers like the Conservative Charles Walker and Labour's Madeleine Moon.

The adjournment debate, led by the Conservative Mark Spencer, is about sentencing for people convicted for road traffic offences.

Over in Westminster Hall (from 1.30pm), MPs have a chance to debate on the two select committee reports; the Education Committee's report on careers guidance for young people and the Science and Technology Committee's on educating tomorrow's engineers.

In the Lords (from 11am) ministers field questions on funding to allow severely bullied children to return to education, and government proposals for reform of the EU at the forthcoming meeting of the European Council.

That is followed by debates led by backbench peers. Lib Dem Lord Greaves raises the contribution of outdoor activities to the UK economy and to the health and wellbeing of the population, and Labour's Lord Soley discusses the current level of growth in the UK economy.

My two picks of the week are the Human Rights Committee session on the Same Sex Marriage Bill (Tuesday), and the Public Accounts Committee hearing on tax avoidance, on Thursday.

There have already been fireworks at that inquiry and more can be expected. But practically every committee seems to be doing something significant and even the internal Commons stuff - on IPSA and empowering MPs - could generate interesting results.

Here's the week's rundown:

Monday

The Communities and Local Government Committee (at 1.45pm) is off to Leeds' town hall to gather evidence about the private rented housing sector. A key issue will be the impact large student populations - so called 'studentification'. The witnesses include local councils and the National Union of Students.

There's another public spending fiasco before the Public Accounts Committee (at 3.15pm) - the attempt to create a new regionalised Fire Control system. The National Audit Office, the government spending watchdog, has said in a recent memorandum to the committee that the project was terminated in December 2010 with none of the original objectives achieved, and a minimum of £469m being wasted. Permanent Secretary at the Communities and Local Government Department, Sir Bob Kerslake, gives evidence alongside senior fire officers.

The Transport Committee (at 4.05pm) continues looking at access to transport for people with disabilities including the record of the aviation sector. And the government's key backroom machinery of government minister, Paymaster General Francis Maude, gives evidence to the Public Administration Committee on the future of the civil service and government procurement (at 4.45pm)

Tuesday

It's a frenetic day on the committee corridor, with all manner of important hearings. Perhaps the day's biggest is the Joint Committee on Human Rights' hearing (at 2.15pm) with equalities minister Maria Miller on Same Sex Marriage. The committee will be examining the human rights ramifications of the current bill - including whether teachers and registrars will be required to act against their consciences. Given the kicking the bill received when it was discussed by the Lords during their debates on the Queen's Speech debate, the views from the peers on the committee could be an interesting pointer to the level of resistance it will encounter when it reaches the Upper House - it's due to have its second reading there on 3 June.

Is the Olympic legacy now boosting school sports? The Education Committee (at 9.30am) hears from Sport England, the Association for Physical Education, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and three Olympians - Jonathan Edwards, Lynne Hutchinson, and Rachel Smith. Meanwhile the Justice Committee's inquiry (at 9.30) into older prisoners continues with evidence from psychiatrists, GPs and the Offender Health Research Network. And the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's inquiry into support for the creative industries (at 10.30) reaches its grand finale with Culture Minister Ed Vaizey and Business Innovation and Skills Minister Viscount Younger.

It was the subject of an epic parliamentary battle, so how's the much-amended 2012 Health and Social Care Act working out in practice? The Health Committee (at 9.30pm) gets the latest analysis from the King's Fund, the Nuffield Trust, and NHS clinical commissioners. On an equally tekky note, the Treasury Committee (at 10.15am) continues its inquiry into quantitative easing with former members of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, Andrew Sentance and Kate Barker.

Universities and Science Minister David Willetts gives evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (at 11.30am) on the government's open access policy - the attempt to make publicly-funded research available, free, to the, er, public.

The inquest into the horsemeat scandal continues, when the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee (at 2.30pm) quizzes Freeza Meats Ltd and the Food Standards Agency. And the Home Affairs Committee (at 2.45pm) takes evidence on leadership and standards in the police from a series of the new Police and Crime Commissioners for various forces . They also hear from Tom Winsor, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

The Scottish Affairs Committee (2.30pm) continues its scrutiny of the implications of independence or - as the committee makes a point of calling it, "separation". This week they hold two sessions on what will happen to pensions in the event of a Scotland leaving the UK. (There's a second hearing on this subject with HM Treasury on Wednesday at 2.30pm.)

One for the Westminster insiders will be the Speaker's Committee on IPSA meeting (3.45pm) to vet IPSA's draft budget for 2013-14. The IPSA politbureau, the chair, Professor Ian Kennedy and chief exec, Andrew MacDonald, hate figures to most MPs, will give evidence. Bring popcorn.

Wednesday

The Science and Technology Committee (at 9.15am) is looking at clinical trials - including the problem of recruiting people to be test subjects for new treatments. And Education Secretary Michael Gove gives evidence to the Education Committee (at 9.30am) on his efforts to improve school accountability, strengthen the qualifications system and reform the curriculum.

The Public Accounts Committee (2.15pm) takes evidence on the payment scheme to compensate people victims of the implosion of the pensions provider, Equitable Life, continuing this long running saga. The National Audit Office says that not enough preparation was done in the short lead up to the scheme and poor data caused delays. The committee will question the Equitable Members Action Group before turning to Treasury civil servants.

Back in Westminster, after their Leeds excursion, the Communities Committee (at 4.10pm) takes further evidence on the private rented sector - focusing on the availability of private rented housing in different parts of the country. In the second section of the hearing, they'll look at the Fire and Rescue Service with Brandon Lewis, the minister in charge and Peter Holland, the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser.

Thursday

The Public Accounts Committee (at 9.45pm) are not giving up their pursuit of tax avoidance by big companies. They've called back Matt Brittin, Google vice president for sales and operations, Northern and Central Europe, to give further evidence and they also have John Dixon, of accountants Ernst and Young and Lin Homer, the chief executive of HMRC before them. One subject bound to come up is whether it is acceptable to have major accounting firms both helping to draw up tax law, and advising companies on how to minimise their tax bills within those regulations.

In this Parliament, MPs control part of the Commons debating time and can choose the subjects they want to talk about - which made the vote on an EU referendum possible.

They also elect the chairs and members of their select committees. So how have these changes - the so-called Wright Reforms - played out? And should the next step by a "House Business Committee" to control the whole Commons agenda? Andrew Lansley, Leader of the Commons and Angela Eagle, his Labour shadow, give evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, who're examining the options for further development.

Nobody is quite sure, yet, whether Nigel Farage's party will be able to capitalise on the substantial slice of local power it won last week, but a share of power in a few County Halls is a huge opportunity for them.

And MPs, who could have an early chance to vote on a referendum proposal at the end of the Queen's Speech debate next week, will be watching closely to see if they seize it.

Flashback to 1981 and the sharp gains made by Liberals and the newly-formed SDP in the county elections of that year. Suddenly a number of traditionally Tory shires became hung councils, and in quite a number of then the Alliance (which later morphed into the Lib Dems) entrenched itself.

Take Cheshire, where, rather unexpectedly, seven Liberal councillors found themselves the arbiters of the 63-member county council. The approach they adopted became the template for Liberal and later Liberal Democrat tactics as hung councils became increasingly common.

The "Cheshire Convention" was born. "We were just a bunch of dewy-eyed guys in sandals," recalls Andrew Stunell - then one of the seven, now a Liberal Democrat MP. "The establishment thought we were a bunch of inexperienced loonies who couldn't possibly hold it together. They were astonished when we did."

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, the counties provided a substantial powerbase for the Lib Dems, and they had real influence over the delivery of big-ticket public services like education and social care. Quite a number of their future MPs cut their teeth in the shires or in other big authorities where the voters gave them a share of power - one reason, perhaps, why the Lib Dems have seemed more comfortable in Coalition than many of their partners.

Newly-hung counties

The question now is whether UKIP can pull off a similar trick in newly-hung counties like Lincolnshire.

Will they make gains for their voters, to demonstrate there's a long-term value in voting for them? What will UKIP's traction be, over the next Budget-setting exercise in Lincoln or Norwich? Will some of the billion-pound spending plans of those county halls reflect a different priority because they are there? Much will depend on the streetsmarts of the new UKIP arrivals - they can't afford to spend too long finding their feet, and the old hands from the other parties will certainly be hoping to beguile and bedazzle them.

And the same dynamic may be played out again next year, when the local elections in some big, powerful metropolitan authorities will be held alongside the European Parliament elections, where the universal expectation is that UKIP will again do well.

A slice of power in town and city halls may be added to the gains in the shires. But the trouble with power is that it provides opportunities for failure and embarrassment - so the new councillors will have to show they can deliver

Meanwhile, having won a fair number of votes on the back of an, at best, patchy organisation, can UKIP bootstrap a real grassroots machine into existence, signing up party members and establishing a visible presence in the community?

If incumbent MPs open their local papers every week to read stories about the activities of UKIP councillors, and if they start to notice a flow of UKIP literature dropping through their doors, their current anxiety will escalate into real fear. There's already a clamour for policy responses on an EU referendum and on immigration - not to mention gay marriage - and some Tories are contemplating seeking a dual endorsement and running as Conservatives with UKIP support.

But that pressure will fade if gnarled political professionals conclude that UKIP's results, this May, were a blip, rather than the birth of a long-term competitor.

Study Eastleigh

Anyone who thinks that grassroots politicking doesn't matter in Westminster elections should study the result of the Eastleigh by-election - where the pervasive Lib Dem presence on the ground saved the seat for Nick Clegg. Which brings me to the other key conclusion to be drawn from the election results - a restatement of the Eastleigh lesson: the Lib Dems are very well dug in in most of their Parliamentary seats and will be very hard to shift, even given their persistent slump in the opinion polls.

Suddenly the first-past-the-post electoral system is working in their favour and they look to have a reasonable chance of returning a decent number of their MPs at the next election. Taken together with the UKIP surge, we're now in four party politics, and seats can be won on a third of the vote, or less. (Take a look at Norwich South, where, in 2010, Lib Dem Simon Wright won on 29% of the vote, ousting former Home Secretary Charles Clarke).

So the party leader who may be most confident of ministerial office in the next Parliament may be....Nick Clegg. His party may be withering outside its electoral heartland but its survival in key constituencies keeps him in the game. Can I proffer a humble - and, admittedly, derivative - suggestion for the punch line of his next conference speech: "Go back to 45 of your constituencies - and prepare for government."

The signatories so far are: John Baron, Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone, Philip Davies, Douglas Carswell, Edward Leigh, John Redwood, Bernard Jenkin and David Davis (Con). Plus John Cryer and Kelvin Hopkins (Lab). And there's plenty of time for more names to be added…

The ball is now in the Speaker's court - ever since the Lib Dems threw a conniption fit in the last parliament, there's been provision for a second amendment to the motion on the Speech to be debated, in addition to the official Opposition's.

It is normally given to the second largest opposition party, but it's not automatic, I understand. His decision on whether or not to call the amendment will probably depend on how many more signatures it attracts, in the next couple of days.

But it could add quite a lot of spice to the normally rather sedate ritual of debating the Queen's Speech.

On Wednesday, Westminster re-opens for business with the usual blaze of Victorian pageantry - the Sovereign's procession, the ceremonial progress to the House of Lords. Black Rod will strike the door of the Commons three times, and summon MPs to the House of Peers. Dennis Skinner will deliver his ceremonial joke, and Conservative MPs will groan their traditional groan, before filing behind their Leader to hear the speech.

And Her Majesty will then enumerate the bills the Coalition proposes to lay before Parliament.

A little later both Houses will debate motions to present "An Humble Address" thanking Her Majesty for "the Gracious Speech".

(The Commons makes a show of asserting its independence from the Crown by debating the "Outlawries Bill", before turning its attention to the speech).

Shared duties

The motion for the Humble Address is proposed by a senior and seconded by a junior government MP - "a genial old codger on the way out, and an oily young man on the make" as the former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell put it, when he was the junior MP in question. In this era of Coalition one has to be Conservative, and one Lib Dem. The speeches are supposed to be witty and light touch, and sometimes they are.

Then Ed Miliband, as Leader of the Opposition, has a go - the normal courtesies require him to compliment the mover and seconder, and remember MPs who've departed this life, before moving on to the bills the government has announced. David Cameron follows - and then the debate opens up. It continues for a further three days, through Thursday, Friday and Monday in the Commons, and Thursday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in the Lords - with different themes in each House on each day.

The Lords have already announced their themes: constitutional affairs, equalities, home affairs, justice and law on Thursday, business, economy, local government and transport on Monday, agriculture, culture, education, energy, health and welfare on Tuesday and defence, foreign and Commonwealth affairs, international development on Wednesday. Note that MPs, diligently, are sitting on Friday.

While the Queen's Speech is being debated, there are no departmental question times, so normal Commons service is not resumed until next Tuesday, when George Osborne takes Treasury Questions.

There will, however, be a smidgeon of select committee action. The Communities and Local Government Committee (at 4.10pm) are committing borderline lese majeste by sitting on State Opening day itself, to continue their inquiry into the private rented housing sector. Witnesses include London's Deputy Mayor for Housing, the British Property Federation, and the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

And Sir Jon Cunliffe, UK Permanent Representative to the EU, a man high in eurosceptic demonology, is before the European Scrutiny Committee, as it continues its inquiry into the Commons' system for scrutinising EU legislation, at 4.30pm.

There's a little more committee activity on Thursday: the International Development Committee (at 9am) takes evidence on violence against women and girls, with Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi, and International Development Minister Lynn Featherstone. The Energy and Climate Change Committee (at 9am) looks into energy prices, profits and poverty with a series of academics and the Environmental Audit Committee (at 10.30am) has its first evidence session on "well-being", a policy approach which attempts to apply the idea of natural capital, to public policy making. The committee will examine the philosophical and practical issues behind this with Professor Dieter Helm, the chair of the newly-created Natural Capital Committee.

And the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (at 11am) continues its investigation into the impact of the Wright Reforms - the Backbench Business Committee, elected select committee chairs and members etc - with senior MPs Sir Alan Beith (chair of the Justice Committee and the Liaison Committee, the super-committee of committee chairs), Clive Betts (chair of the Communities Committee), Elfyn Llwyd (the leader of Plaid Cymru at Westminster - his party and other smaller parties have always felt the Wright reforms didn't do enough to guarantee their voice was heard), Natascha Engel (chair of the Backbench Business Committee), David Howarth (former deputy Leader of the House) and Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, the Tory backbenchers' shop steward. Anoraks will be worn.

One way or another, a lot of Conservative MPs are determined to get a bill for an in-out EU referendum before the Commons in the coming parliamentary year - and there are several ways in which they could make it happen.

The most obvious is to amend tomorrow's Queen's Speech. There's no problem about putting down an amendment. The annual Queen's Speech debate always provides for amendments to be put down by the official opposition and the second biggest opposition party, and an amendment from any other source would at least make it onto the Order Paper, as long as a proposer and seconder could be mustered.

But suppose an amendment went down with the names of 50 plus Conservative backbenchers, plus a lot of DUP MPs, plus a smattering of supporters from other parties? Then the ball would be in Mr Speaker's court. He could call the amendment but it still might not be reached if - purely coincidentally, of course - debate on other amendments were to drag on.

So the main effect of putting such an amendment down would be to put the government and official Opposition into a very uncomfortable position and force them to respond, even if the response is only to resort to procedural tactics to avoid an unwelcome debate on the floor of the House.

And something similar would also happen if the other most probable route was taken. Next week, the annual ballot (it's actually more of a lucky dip…) for priority in bringing forward a private members' bill will be held. If a referendum supporter came top or close to the top, they would be guaranteed a second reading debate on a Friday morning later in the year.

And they would almost certainly be able to beat the biggest initial obstacle to any private members' bill, which is closing the debate and moving to a vote. Under the (admittedly bizarre) rules for such bills, they are only put to a vote if a debate comes to a natural conclusion (when there is no-one left in the Chamber who wants to speak, so the chair calls a vote) or when 100 MPs support a closure motion, ending the debate and calling a vote.

This is the feature of the rules which allows a few MPs to drone on endlessly, use up all the available time and kill a bill by filibustering. The tactic works unless a bill can be forced to a vote, and on this subject I'm sure there are enough pro-referendum backbenchers out there to defeat a filibuster.

All well and good for second reading - but when the bill comes back to the Chamber for report stage, after consideration in committee, opponents may put down dozens of amendments. And each of these will need its own closure motion, which the chair will only allow after an appropriate amount of debate - so it will be pretty easy to exhaust the available debating time.

And here's where the nasty moment comes for the government. Ministers will then face demands to provide government time to allow the debate to continue - and will have to give an answer, one way or the other. So they either cause ructions in the Coalition or inside the Conservative Party - a serious problem, given the number of Conservative backbenchers who now feel the hot breath of UKIP on their necks.

And if they refuse, they hand UKIP a stick to beat them with. It's not hard to imagine Nigel Farage taking to the airwaves to denounce the prime minister for promising a referendum in the next Parliament, while frustrating the chance for one in this Parliament.

It's not an easy issue for the other parties either: Labour would certainly be wary of putting themselves on the wrong side of burgeoning eurosceptic sentiment and it would also be awkward for the pro EU Lib Dems who, don't forget, used to be in favour of an in-out referendum.

On the Today programme this morning, Nick Clegg pointed out that the Coalition had legislated for a referendum for any major change in EU rules in future - and there are bound to be some changes in response to the eurozone crisis at some point. He rejected the idea that a referendum now would "lance the boil".

That's probably the dominant view in the Coalition politburo - but it could soon be under siege in the House of Commons.

And there would be real trouble if Labour decided to sit on its hands or even support a referendum. From a purely tactical point of view it must be tempting, because of the mayhem it would cause in the government. And my impression is that the pro-European orthodoxy of the Blair years is weakening… and it's quite hard to think of a big Labour beast who would lead for their party in a pro-EU campaign.

Of course, it's entirely possible that a referendum amendment won't get to the wicket in the Queen's Speech debate and that no pro-referendum MP wins a high enough place in the ballot to bring in a private members bill….but the government business managers will be keeping their fingers crossed.

The appointment of several MPs to the Conservatives' new Parliamentary Advisory Board is interesting for all sorts of reasons: the personnel are impressive and the mandate to inject more Toryism into government policy should produce plenty of action.

But does it also enmesh, if not totally muzzle, quite a number of important backbench figures. In particular, Jesse Norman, who spearheaded the successful rebellion against Coalition plans to overhaul the House of Lords, and George Eustice who rallied backbench support for a Leveson-style press regulation system, have been brought inside the tent.

Neither may have any great plans to defy the party line in hand at the moment, but both would find it difficult to combine membership of this new body with any new defiance of the whips. And the same applies to the other members: Jane Ellison, Paul Uppal, Nick Gibb, Peter Lilley and Jake Berry.

Are all these eminent folk - now part of the government payroll vote - bound to toe the line on pain of resignation? This matters because the payroll - the list of ministers and whips and Parliamentary Private Secretaries (PPSs) and chairmen, deputy chairmen and assistant chairmen at party HQ, who're all expected to support the government - is an important factor in Commons votes.

They represent a kind of parliamentary baseline for the whips; the people they can safely assume will vote as expected. Over the years, the number of ministers and PPSs has crept upwards, encompassing an ever larger share of government MPs, and by implication limiting the number of potential rebels, because defiance means resignation.

And successive governments have become adept at creating not-quite-ministers who become part of an unpaid payroll vote...an MP who is the prime minister's personal envoy on this, or policy advisor on that, will think carefully before ditching their role.

Now, in the PAB, David Cameron has created a whole new institution, which has brought a handy contingent of MPs inside the governmental tent. And what about the new policy supremo, Jo Johnson (who must be heartily sick of seeing his career discussed purely in terms of its implications for big brother Boris), what will his role be? He takes up residence in the increasingly crowded precincts of the Cabinet Office (which now contains a record 10 ministers*), while retaining his rank as an assistant whip and the £26,000 salary top-up it brings. He certainly remains a member of the government, but I wonder how much whipping he'll do, from now on?

Of course the PAB will only limit the freedom of action of its members if it's worth being a member. If they have inside track access to documents and top-table ministers, and if their ideas are taken seriously and injected into government policy or the next manifesto, membership will be worth having. But if they find themselves playing in some political Wendy House, those MPs might be soured rather than co-opted.

* Nick Clegg, Ken Clarke, Francis Maude, Oliver Letwin, David Laws, Nick Hurd, Chloe Smith, Jo Johnson (alright, he's a whip, not a minister), Grant Shapps and John Hayes.

As an aid to the bemused I offer this cut-out-'n-keep guide to what's going on.

For a bill to become law, both Houses of Parliament have to agree on its exact final form…. So when a bill that has passed the Commons is amended in the Lords, it is sent back - pinged - to the Commons, once their lordships have finished with it, for those changes to be approved…or rejected. This gives rise to items on the Commons Order Paper with titles like "consideration of Lords amendments".

MPs can either agree to the changes (and the government does make a lot of amendments to its own bills in the Lords) or they can reject them, and send - pong - the bill back to their lordships.

If they reject Lords amendments a "reasons committee" repairs to a small room behind the Speaker's Chair, where a message to the Lords setting out the reasons for the Commons decisions is composed in formal parliamentary language. It doesn't usually take long.* They can simply disagree, they can amend the Lords amendments or they can offer other amendments instead.

The Clerk of the Commons, Robert Rogers, quotes an example of the kind of message** carried from House to House as this process unfolds…this was from the ping pong on the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

Concentrate…

The Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, to which this House has insisted on its disagreement, for which insistence they assign their Reasons; they insist on certain of the Amendments to which this House has disagree, for which insistence they assign their Reasons; they disagree to the Amendments proposed by this House in lieu of the Lords Amendments, for which disagreement they assign their Reason; they do not insist on the remaining Amendments to which this House has disagreed; and they agree to the remaining Amendments made by this House on which this House had insisted.

Another little nuance is the colour coding…extra green pages are provided in the text of a bill for amendments to be added. Amendments by the second House to consider a bill are printed there, in black. Amendments to those by the first House are added in red, amendments to those are added in green, and so on, through violet, brown, blue, yellow, pink, cyan, silver, indigo, gold, light green, orange and dark grey…. So far no bill has bounced between the Houses more than 15 times, but one constraint on the process might be finding a different ink to signify the exchange of amendments.

And so it goes on. The Lords, in their turn, then decide on their response. Do they accept whatever the Commons has decided, do they reject it, or do they offer some new amendment? Another ping, followed, quite possibly, by another pong. There is no limit to this process other than the impending end of the Parliamentary year. And a bill which is not agreed upon falls, when the music stops.

Which is why, as the deadline approaches, both Houses often end up sitting late into the night, convening, sending messages to the other House, then adjourning to await the response. Old hands take the precaution of bringing in toothbrushes and fresh clothing. Recently, the party groups in the Lords have taken to showing movies - Skyfall and the Spirit of '45 are recent examples - to keep their troops entertained while negotiations and manoeuvres take place behind the scenes. The annunciators are scanned for details of the next sitting, and carry the Kenneth Williams-esqe message "House Adjourned During Pleasure".

Most Parliamentarians want their outstanding business dealt with by Thursday. So far, the government has compromised on its proposed relaxation of planning regulations for home extensions, in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill…but another battle looms over its "Shares for Rights" proposal, which the Lords rejected in March, and the Commons reinstated last week, and the Lords rejected again on Tuesday. Will they go another round?

Then there's the Defamation Bill - where the Lords got their way on the "serious harm test" requiring that companies would have to prove substantial financial loss, or at least the likelihood of it, before they could sue for libel. Will peers press their luck further, and insist that private companies running public services should also lose their right to sue for libel? Or will they end the battle there? As the deadline looms, their lordships' leverage increases. And ministers can't even threaten to reform them anymore.

* Arguably the most historic meeting in the Reasons Room was not anything to do with ping pong, but the ad-hoc gathering in March 1963, in which the then Minister for War, John Profumo, was quizzed - in pretty basic terms - by senior colleagues about his relationship with Christine Keeler, and denied any impropriety. That denial was untrue and was later repeated in the Commons, sealing Profumo's political doom and doing huge collateral damage to Harold Macmillan's government.

**quoted from Order! Order! A Parliamentary Miscellany, by Robert Rogers.

Several key issues still have to be sorted out, with the added spice that if agreement is not reached by the time the music stops, whole bills could be lost.

Dotted through this week's Lords and Commons agendas are debates devoted to amendments made by the other house.... each side will have to vote on whether to accept or reject the changes made by the other. And as the deadline for the end of the session looms, the brinkmanship could mean a messy pattern of late night sittings and temporary adjournments, followed by more sittings and more votes....the wise parliamentarian will pack a toothbrush.

Other than that, the agenda for next week is, frankly, paper thin. Most MPs are assuming that Parliament will be prorogued (the 2012-13 session will be ended) on Thursday, and they won't be back until the state opening in May .

Here's the rundown of next week's events:

Monday

The Commons sits at 2.30pm for Education questions and then MPs move on to consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Service Pensions Bill - the government was defeated in February on an amendment to include the Defence Fire and Rescue Service under the category of fire and rescue services generally, so that they are no longer subject to the separate Ministry of Defence retirement age and pension scheme - in effect, protecting the pension rights of MoD firefighters.

The government lost by 27 votes, because of a strong turnout by crossbench peers, and ministers may feel they can test opinion in the Lords again on this one.

It's same process/different bill as MPs move on to Lords amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill. Here, the government lost on three issues in the Lords. The biggest defeat - by 96 votes - was on a vote to insert a clause repealing the offence of use of insulting words that are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Ministers lost by a big majority, in a thinly attended House, with lots of rebels from both coalition parties.

The other issues where the government may seek to overturn their lordships are on the clause they inserted making bailiffs and enforcement agents subject to the same regulation and legal status as other authorised bodies under the Legal Services Act 2007 - the majority against the government was 42. And the third issue was to require that probation trusts make appropriate provisions for female offenders, including unpaid work and behavioural change programmes, which was passed by a 28-vote majority.

MPs will also finish off the Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Bill which makes changes to the rules for prosecution in Scotland of partnerships, partners and others following dissolution or changes in membership. They will complete the report stage and third reading.

The day ends with quite an interesting looking adjournment debate on fixed odds betting terminals - the Labour MP Tom Greatrex is worried about high stake roulette machines flooding high streets, after a report highlighted their negative economic impact on local areas. He says these machines are, too often, targeted at people in deprived areas with high levels of unemployment. And he's supporting calls for better regulation of the machines.

The day's backbench debate in Westminster Hall (4.30pm - 7.30pm) looks well worth watching. It's on an e-petition calling for the government to stop mass immigration from Bulgaria and Romania in 2014. By the end of this year all EU member states have to lift restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian workers -- when those two states joined, there were transitional controls to prevent a sudden flood of their nationals migrating to other countries.

But next year the schemes limiting immigration to skilled workers and a quota of low skilled workers will be swept away and Bulgarians and Romanians will be able to come to Britain to work on exactly the same basis as other EU citizens. Because this is a Westminster Hall debate, there won't be a vote, but the MP who secured it, Mark Pritchard, hopes ministers will reveal how they're planning to limit the UK's "pull factor" - which may include limiting entitlement to benefits, housing and NHS treatment.

In the Lords (from 2.30pm) the first event is the introduction of the Bishop of Truro, Rt Revd Tim Thornton, who'll take his place on the Bishops' Bench for the first time.

Questions range across the publication date for of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, Female Genital Mutilation in the UK and oxygenation machines in NHS hospitals.

Peers then move on to the third reading of the Succession to the Crown Bill - which ends the priority given to princes over princesses in the line of succession to the throne. Then it's their lordships' turn for a bit of parliamentary ping-pong - Consideration of Commons amendments to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.

Here there are two key issues: the first is on the "shares for rights" clause which peers rejected and the Commons has reinstated.

The crossbench peer Lord Pannick has put down a motion flatly disagreeing with the Commons vote - sometimes peers offer a compromise (an "amendment in lieu") but this is flat rejection.

The government lost on this by 54 votes in the Lords in March - there were a smattering of Conservative and Lib Dem rebels, but the balance was tipped by strong opposition on the crossbenches, where Lord Pannick is a highly influential figure. I'd guess that peers are in no mode to retreat on this one.

The second issue is the proposal to increase "permitted rights" to development - allowing householders to build bigger extensions before they need planning permission. This issue is extremely toxic and a number of Conservative MPs rebelled in the Commons this week. A compromise proposal was promised - and duly delivered by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles. It's still not clear, though, if this will defuse Lords' opposition.

Barely pausing for breath, peers then move on to Commons amendments to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, where the outstanding disagreements relate to the outlawing of caste discrimination, liability in the civil courts for breaches of health and safety regulations, and maintaining the Equality and Human Rights Commission's duty to support the development of a society which respects human rights and equal opportunities. On all three of these issues, Labour has put down amendments flatly rejecting the decisions of the Commons.

So I suspect a lot of peers will have packed a toothbrush -- they could have a few long nights of ping-pong ahead.

Tuesday

MPs will gather at 11.30am for Foreign Office questions . There's a ten minute rule bill from Lib Dem ex-minister Sarah Teather, to amend the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to require the government to conduct an annual review on support for asylum-seekers, and to increase their benefits in line with the general benefit increase in any given year.

Then there's an Opposition Day debate on Northern Ireland. And all this leaves plenty of space for further consideration of Lords amendments to assorted bills, as necessary. The day ends with an adjournment debate on the effect of weather conditions on upland sheep farmers led by the Montgomeryshire Conservative and family farmer Glyn Davies, who blogs about the issue.

Over in Westminster Hall, from 9.30am, there are a series of debates led by backbenchers, starting with Ann Clwyd on Accident and Emergency waiting times.

My eye was also caught by the Conservative Kris Hopkins' debate (4pm) on Sharia law in the UK.

Over in the Lords (from 2.30pm) there could be a bit of blue-on-blue friendly fire at question time - the winner of the ballot for a topical question is Baroness Eaton who will ask the government about their involvement in the controversial decision to suspend surgery at the Leeds General Infirmary Children's Heart Unit. Health Minister Earl Howe will answer.

Then it's back to ping-pong and consideration of Commons amendments. First up is the Public Service Pensions Bill and that issue about MoD firefighters (see above).

But I expect bigger ructions over the Defamation Bill, where Labour have already responded to this week's votes in the Commons which struck down restrictions on the right of companies to sue.

The government has promised a compromise on the "serious harm test" under which companies and other bodies (so-called "non-natural persons") would have to show that they had suffered or might suffer serious financial loss, in order to win permission to sue. The Lords put this test in; MPs have just removed it, and the Lords may well put it back. Expect strong Labour pressure on the Lib Dems, if they think government compromise doesn't measure up. Another issue revolves around whether private companies performing a public service (perhaps local government contractors running care services, or something similar) should be allowed to sue.

And the yomp continues with yet more ping-pong, this time on the Crime and Courts Bill (see above).

Wednesday

The Commons meets at 11.30am for Scottish questions, followed by PMQs. This will be David Cameron's first direct clash with Ed Miliband since mid-March, and, because of the break for prorogation and then the state opening of Parliament, the two will not face each other across the dispatch box until mid-May.

After PMQs MPs debate a ten minute rule bill to allow local councils to impose fines for breaches of planning permission - proposed by the Conservative Jeremy Lefroy. And then there's an Opposition Day debate on the future of the Agricultural Wages Board - all of which leaves plenty of time for more debate on Lords amendments to all those bills.....

Meanwhile in Westminster Hall (from 9.30am) there are more backbench debates - the Conservative Jane Ellison raises the case of Shaker Aamer - the last British resident still held in Guantanamo Bay, and Labour's Keith Vaz (2.30pm - 4pm) has a debate on childhood obesity and diabetes. The SDLP's Mark Durkan (4pm - 4.30pm) raises the Ministry of Defence response to the Historical Enquiries Team Report on the death of William McGreanery - and Conservative Rob Wilson (4.30pm - 5pm) talks about the role of the BBC Trust in oversight of the BBC.

In the Lords (from 3pm) ministers will field questions on the UK Statistics Authority overruling Office for National Statistics' decision to keep the Retail Prices Index and the UK incidence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Peers then debate some changes to their procedures - on the rules around repeating ministerial replies to urgent Commons questions, and on a proposal to establish a Commons-style (shudder) Backbench Debates Committee. They should canter pretty quickly through the third reading of the Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill and then Labour peer Lord Hunt of Kings Heath proposes a motion to annul the National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2) Regulations 2013.

Thursday

The Commons meets at 9.30am for what could well be the final day of this parliamentary year. There will be questions to the Transport Secretary, to the Leader of the House and House of Commons Commission and the weekly Business Statement will follow...if the House has to keep sitting the following week, for even more ping-pong.

After that MPs debate a statutory instrument on banks and a motion to approve a European Document on completing the Single European Railways Area. The government motion calls for any EU policy to be evidence based and proportionate and to minimise any burden on industry.

In Westminster Hall (1.30pm - 4.30pm) there will be a debate on two Transport Committee reports - first on Plug-in Vehicles, Plugged in Policy?, which deals with incentives for low carbon vehicles like electric cars, and second road safety, which suggests extra restrictions on newly-qualified teenage drivers. This is another sign of some select committees becoming more assertive about their policy suggestions.

In the Lords (from 11am) peers pose questions to ministers on the impact on UK tourism of new visa restrictions for visitors from Brazil and government action to comply with the EU directive on people trafficking. Then there's a debate on the Maastricht economic convergence criteria with a motion suggesting sanctions for euro-zone countries which fail to keep their economies in line.

And, unless there's more pinging and ponging to go through, the leading figures in the Lords will, at some point, don their ceremonial gear and go through the pythonesque ritual of proroguing Parliament, with much doffing of cocked hats and flowery 17th Century language.

Everything from specific scandals to controversies around current legislation to big-picture policy is under the microscope. There don't seem to be many big-name ministers stalking the committee corridor, but there's still plenty to chew on....

Monday

Concerns raised by whistleblowers about the out-of-hours GP service in Cornwall are the subject of the Public Accounts Committee (at 3.15pm). There were claims that the service, run by Serco had been unable to fill shifts with appropriately qualified staff, making it unsafe. But a clinical review in June 2012 found no evidence of that. Chair of the Committee, Margaret Hodge asked the National Audit Office to look into it - and the committee will hear from Serco and local NHS officials.

The Transport Committee (at 4.05pm) continues its look at the work of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) which monitors the roadworthiness of large vehicles like HGVs, buses etc. The latest witnesses, Beverley Bell, the Senior Traffic Commissioner; VOSA Chief Executive Alastair Peoples and Transport Minister Stephen Hammond can expect cross examination about the effectiveness of the system in dealing with foreign vehicles and school buses - especially now much of its work is contracted out.

The super-committee on the National Security Strategy (at 4.30pm) which consists of high powered select committee chairs and senior ex-ministers, with former Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett in the chair, will take evidence from leading policy wonks on how the UK's National Security Strategy fits in with the activities of the EU and NATO. The cast list includes uber-pundit Charles Grant, of the Centre for European Reform, Dr Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer, director of the Paris Office, German Marshall Fund, and Dr Nicolai von Ondarza, Senior Associate, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (German Institute for International and Security Affairs).

It's seconds out at the Science and Technology Committee (at 5.15pm) as campaigner and science writer Ben Goldacre enters the ring with with big pharma-companies he has harried, like GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. They'll do battle over the need for increased transparency in clinical trials - do the companies use their data selectively to hype new drugs? There'll be two panels of witnesses: the first panel will include, the Medical Research Council, Association of Medical Research Charities, Cancer Research UK, and Wellcome Trust.

Tuesday

The Justice Committee (at 9.30am) investigates how the government should cater for the growing numbers of older prisoners in our jails - a consequence of increasing life expectancy when "a life sentence means life". The witnesses include Nick Hardwick, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Peter McParlin, the National Chairman of the Prison Officers Association, and Nigel Newcomen, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman plus independent prison scrutineers, and academics.

Should a black box in your home be able to control your fridge or freezer or other appliances, to help the nation manage its energy demand? The Energy and Climate Change Committee (at 9.30am) looks at the rise of the smart meter - these devices could help the National Grid cope with demand surges, for example at half time in some football international, when half the nation puts the kettle on.

In those circumstances it could switch off freezers for a few minutes, without doing any harm, and so avoid the need for expensive and often environmentally harmful standby generators to come on line. But some find this idea a bit Orwellian and the committee will hear from campaigners, consumer groups and business.

It's one for the economists - but the answers matter for everyone at the Treasury Committee (at 10am). They're looking into Quantitative Easing - the monetary policy which the Bank of England and the government are using to combat the recession. Expert witnesses weight the implications.

With the Commons committee stage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill - the measure to allow gay marriage - now complete, the joint Committee on Human Rights (2.15pm) is giving it the once over. They'll hear from Baroness O'Neill, the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Chris Professor McCrudden, of Blackstone Chambers, the lawyer who advised the Roman Catholic Church on the bill. He has already given evidence to the bill committee about concerns around the implications for Roman Catholic Schools and for teachers.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (3pm) looks at the horsemeat scandal in its food contamination inquiry. This session hears from the Irish Republic's Food Safety Authority, and committee members will be keen to discover the exact circumstances around the decision to act against particular companies and get some estimate of how long horsemeat had been included in products.

This is an early hearing in what could be a protracted inquiry. The committee is already hearing rumours of a tangle of family, EU, ministerial and business relationships touching the horsemeat scandal, and is trying to get a number of individuals to appear before it. Some are not UK citizens, but MPs hope those who work for British companies and will give evidence.

The Home Affairs Committee has a triple-headed session. At 2.45pm they quiz expert witnesses on e-Crime. Then they turn to leadership and standards in the police, with evidence from Commander Dal Babu, a senior Muslim officer in the Metropolitan police who won a landmark case against the Met over discrimination because of his faith, and Mike Fuller, Britain's first black Chief Constable. Then, at 4.15pm the committee turns to the implications for the Home Affairs area of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union.

The witnesses are the Bulgarian Ambassador, Konstantin Dimitrov, Dr Ion Jinga, the Romanian Ambassador, followed by Mark Harper, the immigration minister.

The Defence Committee (at 3.30pm) continues its look at the deal given to service personnel, in its inquiry into the Armed Forces Covenant in Action. They've been focusing on education - do the children of service families, which may be moved to new quarters at short notice, lose out in the race for places at the best schools? Mark Francois MP, minister of state for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, gives evidence.

Update: Eagle-eyed Health Committee member Barbara Keeley spotted that I'd failed to mention their important evidence session on the Mid Staffs NHS Trust inquiry, with Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Una O'Brien, the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health. Given the magnitude of the Mid Staffs scandal, this will be a major event (starts at 2.30pm).

Wednesday

It's a very full and busy committee day, opening with the Science and Technology Committee (9am) which gets down wid da kidz by inviting Twitter users to suggest questions for the government's Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Mark Walport, when he appears before them... via the hashtag #askUKScienceChief .

The Public Administration (9.30am) has a session on migration statistics which should not be nearly as dry as it sounds. The issue range from whether the government's estimates of migration are good enough, to whether the figures should be used to direct more public money towards areas with high numbers of new arrivals. The witnesses include Dr Scott Blinder of the Migration Observatory, Councillor Philippa Roe, the leader of Westminster City Council and assorted experts.

Is the government getting academy schools right? The Education Committee (9.30am) has a session with members of the high-powered Academies Commission set up by the Royal Society for the Arts to look at the implications of the drive towards a fully academised system - and which questioned if it was justified by the evidence. Expect considerable discussion of the issues around autonomy, centralisation, governance and collaboration in the English school system.

The Transport Committee (at 10am) still has its teeth firmly sunk into the debacle over the West Coast Main Line. And following recent announcements by the government on the future of the rail franchising system, they'll be hearing from the Minister for Rail, Simon Burns.

The Defence Committee (10.30am) is looking at big picture defence policy with expert witnesses Lord Hennessy, Professor Julian Lindley-French and General Mungo Melvin. The coalition's first defence review came under heavy criticism - this session looks to the next big set of policy questions about the future size and shape of the UK's armed forces.

Could the government save money and deliver more if its various arms could work better together? The Public Accounts Committee (2.15pm) has a session on the Integration of public services/Community Budgets - informed by two National Audit Office reports on measuring the costs of budgets and on integration across government.

The committee will hear from witnesses from local councils and central government - including Sir Bob Kerslake, the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Having reported on dog control and welfare in February, the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee (3pm) will be looking at the government's Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill, to see whether it implements their recommendations. ACPO and all the leading pet charities give evidence. Elsewhere, the European Scrutiny Committee (2.30pm) has another bunch of journalists before it as it continues its inquiry into the, er, European Scrutiny system in the House of Commons; ie, itself.

Anoraks will be worn at the Procedure Committee (3.05pm) where they're probing the mysteries of the Commons Early Day Motion. Are these motions (which are never debated, but which MPs can sign up to, to signal their support), just "parliamentary graffiti", or do they serve a purpose useful enough to justify the expense. Backbenchers Graham Evans, Robert Halfon and Sarah Wollaston give evidence.

Thursday

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (10am) is looking at the efforts being made to ensure that the planned switch to Individual Electoral Registration doesn't result in lots of people losing the right to vote.

Under the current system, heads of household fill out a form listing all those entitled to vote who live under their roof. But Parliament has voted to bring in a new system switching the responsibility to register to each individual. When this was tried in Northern Ireland, it resulted in a sharp drop in the numbers registered to vote - so the committee will be looking at the outcome of pilot schemes which have tried to track elusive voters through data-matching with, for example benefit payments and council tax information.

They'll be asking Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission, how the government can ensure that people who are not picked up through data matching are not lost from the register, how the Electoral Commission will be supporting Electoral Registration Officers during the switch to IER and whether the uncertainty about the end of the transition period for IER poses any problems.

Lord Tony Hall, the new Director-General of the BBC, makes his debut before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (10.30) alongside Lord Patten, the chair of the Board of Trustees.

Given that it was an appearance before this committee that put the skids under his short-lived predecessor; this will be quite an occasion. Expect questions about Panorama's North Korea documentary, the Jimmy Savile saga, the appointment of Labour former Culture Secretary James Purnell to a top BBC job, and about Lord Hall's own appointment.

And watch out for a rematch between Lord Patten and committee member Phillip Davies, after their entertaining spat at their last encounter. It will be interesting to see if the committee concentrates on current headlines or whether it looks, at all, at the big strategic issues confronting a licence fee-funded state broadcaster, in a fast-changing media environment.

A motion to make those changes to the schedule, in the name of the Leader of the House, Andrew Lansley, is down on the order paper, and must be agreed by the whole House.

If there is one objection the government would have to find time to debate the motion on Tuesday and vote on the rescheduling.

In other circumstances, I would nominate one of the Tory awkward squaddies like Chris Chope, who, rather admirably, makes a point of not nodding through whatever changes to parliamentary business the executive happens to fancy. But on this occasion the uber-Thatcherite Mr Chope may decide not to intervene; although it appears that Respect MP George Galloway might.

On the other hand, Labour MPs who have regularly accused David Cameron of dodging his weekly question time, whenever possible, may make an issue of the fact that the last PMQs was on 20 March. If this slot is lost, Mr Cameron will only have one more PMQs in this session, on 24 April, and won't be back until after the state opening, on 15 May - so one PMQs in eight weeks.

Elsewhere, we're in the tidying-up phase that marks the end of the parliamentary session, with the Commons and Lords likely to devote considerable time to "parliamentary ping-pong" over bills amended in the Lords....which may mean late nights and regular outbreaks of irritable legislator syndrome.

* With no House of Lords (they're not back until Monday 22 April) and the select committees winding down a little as the end of the Parliamentary year looms, I'm doing a combined preview of the Commons and the committees. When normal Westminster service resumes, I'll default back to separate posts previewing the Commons and Lords, and previewing committee business. But this week I offer it to you in a single blog McNugget.

Monday

The Commons meets at 2.30pm for Defence questions - and given the long Easter break, there may be a number of ministerial statements and urgent questions to deal with before they move on to the second reading of the Finance (No.2) Bill - the measure which puts the changes announced in the Budget into law. This measure reappears again later in the week for further stages of consideration - and there are important issues around the banking levy, the help for home-buyers scheme, the top rate of tax and on tax avoidance to be fought out.

The day ends with an adjournment debate on community pharmacies and NHS reorganisation led by Labour MP Stephen Pound - he's concerned that the pharmacies, which have helped deliver big improvements in preventive care in recent years, are not represented within the new structures set up to run the NHS in England, and that other NHS interests like GPs might muscle in on them, leading to a turf war.

Committees

The Public Accounts Committee (at 3.15pm) has a session on the Civil Service reform plan with high-powered witnesses including Sir Bob Kerslake, the head of the Home Civil Service, and Lord Browne of Madingley, lead non-executive director, Efficiency and Reform Board, Cabinet Office. On the face of it, this is another rather techie machinery-of-government session, but the PAC is increasingly finding that the issues it deals with in management and value for money, mainline straight back to the nature of the civil service. In a recent session on cyber-security a group of mandarins giving evidence were asked if they had ever written computer code themselves; only one had, and that was 20 years before. So PAC members are increasingly questioning whether hyper-smart Oxbridge generalists are the right people to manage the state in the 21st Century.

The Communities and Local Government Committee (at 4pm) will take a look at the Coalition's record on localism - its promise to hand power back from Whitehall to town and city halls. The key witnesses will be Greg Clark, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has retained the brief he held in the Communities and Local Government Department, as cities minister - he was the architect of the coalition's "City Deals", which handed extensive powers to particular local authorities, and he retained responsibility for that programme, even after his promotion to the Treasury. (Confusingly, he is both minister for The City and for, er, cities). Also giving evidence is Lib Dem Communities Minister, Don Foster,

And the session will look at the progress and implications of the transfer of powers and follow up on the ideas emanating from Graham Allen's Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on codifying the relationship between central and local government - is there any enthusiasm in the coalition for enshrining localism in some new constitutional deal?

The Transport Committee (at 4.15pm) hears evidence on access to transport for people with disabilities from Transport for All, Leonard Cheshire, Passenger Focus, Confederation of Passenger Transport, First Group, National Express, ATOC, Eurostar, Network Rail.

And the Welsh Affairs Committee (at 11am) has decamped to the National Assembly for Wales, in Cardiff, to quiz Carl Serjeant, the Welsh Minister for Housing and Regeneration, and other witnesses, on the impact of changes to housing benefit in Wales. (They take further evidence on the issue in Wales on Tuesday).

Tuesday

Commons business begins at 11.30am with Health Questions and that will be followed by a Ten Minute Rule Bill, proposed by the Conservative Fiona Bruce, on abortion statistics. She's concerned about "the extensive practice of abortions carried out solely on the grounds of gender, otherwise referred to as female gendercide, in countries such as China and India leading to an imbalance of millions fewer young women than men". The motion highlights evidence that this illegal practice may be growing in the UK and calls on the government to investigate.

Then MPs spend the rest of the day dealing with changes made by the House of Lords to the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Bill, the Defamation Bill and the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill. All legislation has to be approved in identical form by both Houses of Parliament and where a bill is changed by one, those changes are sent to the other for approval - if there is no agreement, the bill bounces between them, in so-called parliamentary ping-pong. There's a lot of this at the end of the parliamentary year, with the added spice of brinkmanship, because if agreement is not reached by the end of the session, the bill is lost, a fact which gives dissident peers considerable leverage.

All of the bills (except the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill) saw government defeats in the Lords, and it will be interesting to see whether the coalition wants to reverse all of the defeats, or whether it will take some of them on the chin. In particular, peers struck down a clause of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill which allows employees to become "employee shareholders" when they receive £2,000 or more in shares, and requires that in so doing they forego some employment rights over things like redundancy payments and unfair dismissal.

On the Defamation Bill, the government will have to decide whether to accept a new clause allowing profit-making organisations to sue for defamation only where they can prove substantial financial loss, and barring public bodies - like local authorities - from taking any defamation action. Conservative MP, former Solicitor-General and former Sun libel reader Edward Garnier has already put down an amendment to strike it down.

And on ERR there were four government defeats - including one which reinstated civil liability in breaches of duty of health and safety regulations. In each case the Lords may kick back, if MPs vote to reject the changes they have made, and the whole process may turn several times.

If someone does force a debate on the timetable for the Commons on Wednesday (see above), it will probably be slotted in around the discussion of these bills.

The day's adjournment debate looks interesting. Conservative Robert Buckland wants to question ministers about moves to impose UK visa restrictions on Russian officials implicated in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, the accountant and auditor who was was arrested and died in Moscow's notorious Butyrka prison after alleging there was a large-scale corruption and theft by state officials. The United States and Canada are among countries which have passed laws banning individuals said to be involved in the death - and Mr Buckland wants to know if Britain intends to follow suit.

In Westminster Hall there are a series of debates led by backbenchers - my eye was caught by Lib Dem former minister Sir Nick Harvey's, on free school meals and the pupil premium (11am - 11.30am).

The day's top committee business is the Culture, Media and Sport hearing on the press regulation system agreed between the parties before Easter (11.15am). The witnesses are the Culture Secretary Maria Miller, Cabinet Office policy guru Oliver Letwin, and Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. It's a little bit after the fact, given that the legislative changes for the Royal Charter system they agreed between them have already been voted through, but events have moved so fast that the committee is playing catch-up.

There's another multi-headed session of the Home Affairs Committee (starting at 2.45pm). First they hear from a galaxy of experts and interest groups about e-crime issues including privacy and security on social networks, digital forensics, measuring the cost of e-crime and international cooperation. Some of the key evidence will come from the financial industry. With card fraud estimated to cost the UK £340m a year the committee is keen to quiz the banks and card providers about the quality of their security and the arrangements for refunding their customers if they become victims of fraud. At about 4.15pm discussion will turn to asylum, with evidence from John Vine, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.

Elsewhere, there's more civil service reform, this time at the Public Administration Committee (at 9.30am) where the star witness is Tony Blair's former Downing Street majordomo Jonathan Powell.

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (9.30am) continues its inquiry into Open Access, the practice of providing unrestricted access to research via the internet - a host of witnesses from the publishers of peer-reviewed journals and research institutions will give their views. The Defence Committee (2.30pm) considers the education of service personnel as part of its continuing look at the workings of the Armed Forces Covenant.

Also on Tuesday, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Breast Cancer is taking evidence from Public Health Minister Anna Soubry, as it looks into concerns that many older breast cancer patients are not receiving the same level of treatment and support as younger patients and are not benefitting from advances in radiotherapy, chemotherapy and surgery that have dramatically improved the survival chances of younger patients. The risk of breast cancer increases with age and currently a third of all breast cancers occur in women aged 70 and over. The questioning is likely to revolve around future plans for cancer awareness initiatives for older people - there are already pilots of an initiative called BCLEAR, and the APPG is keen to see if the government regards that as successful and therefore to continue it. The inquiry will also hear from Professor Julietta Patnick, the Director of NHS Cancer Screening Programmes on the priorities in relation to older women, and from Dr Lindsay Forbes, the Co-Director, King's College London Promoting Early Cancer Presentation Group, on targeted initiatives to raise awareness of breast cancer in older women, and from Amanda Boughey of Cancer Research UK on the Be Clear on Cancer awareness campaign aimed at women over 70.

Assuming the government gets its way, Wednesday's Commons action will begin at 2.30pm with questions to the Scottish Secretary. There will be no PMQs, so the next business will be a Ten Minute Rule Bill from Labour's Meg Munn to allow schools to register as Co-Ops (Industrial Provident Societies) and then it's on to committee of the whole House consideration of the Finance Bill.

I'm not quite sure what happens to the Westminster Hall debates scheduled for Wednesday - the current running order starts at 9.30am with Labour's Fabian Hamilton leading a debate on the role of local bus services in supporting young people in employment, education and training in Yorkshire and Humber, with four more debates to follow. How they'll be affected by the proposed change in sitting hours is not clear yet.

And the same may apply to the day's select committee sittings. At the moment the Environmental Audit Committee is due to meet at 2.15pm to hear evidence on Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories, and the Public Accounts Committee (also 2.15pm) is scheduled to look at Subject: Digital Britain Two - the usability of government online services, based on this report from the National Audit Office - with Baroness Martha Lane-Fox, the UK Digital Champion, and Richard Heaton, the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office due to give evidence.

And so to Thursday, when the Commons meets at 9.30am for Culture, Media and Sport and Women and Equalities questions. There will be the usual statement from the Leader of the House, Andrew Lansley setting out the Commons agenda for the coming week, and then it's back to the committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill.

It's a relatively quiet day in committee-land, with even more on the Civil Service at the Public Administration Committee at 9.30am. They'll be quizzing the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, and Sir Bob Kerslake, head of the home civil service on .....the future of the civil service.

The International Development Committee (at 9.30am) is looking at Global Food Security, with evidence from Transport Minister Norman Baker, International Development minister Lynne Featherstone, and experts including DFID's Food and Nutrition Security Team. And the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (at 10am) takes evidence from the Better Government Initiative, Unlock Democracy and Democratic Audit on the impact of the Wright reforms, which beefed up the legitimacy of Commons select committees.

Neither House is sitting on Friday.

People tend to get a bit snarky about politicians upping sticks between elections, partly because by-elections are not cheap, and the voters don't much like being bothered with avoidable trips to the polling station. But there's something else to be factored in; if you don't want to be in Parliament, you shouldn't be there.

At the Westminster level, politics has to be a vocation. You have to want it. You have to care. There's no point in simply shuffling through the lobbies out of habit. So if the vocation goes (and they can evaporate in the face of changing circumstance, family crisis, or sheer ennui) so should the politician. To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen, nobody knows where vocation goes; but when it goes, it's gone.

So let the job go to someone with real zest - because that's what the constituents and the country deserve.

In the brief twitterstorm (twitter-shower?) after the Mirror's scoop on Mr Miliband's departure emerged, I compared him to another lost leader, Michael Portillo. Neither seemed quite keen enough on leading their party - they would have accepted coronation, but wouldn't mud-wrestle for the crown. And after failing to win, they haunted the backbenches, making occasional spectral appearances, before finding another role to rekindle their enthusiasm. Lingering a while to see if the mojo returns, after such a rebuff, is fair enough. Feeling you have to stay to avoid your party losing a by-election is understandable, up to a point, but bed-blocking forever wastes space and short-changes democracy.

So Mr Miliband, and before him Louise Mensch, took the right decision for themselves and for politics.

It's not yet clear exactly when Mr Miliband will depart - although the smart money assumes he will time his leaving to allow a by-election on local election day. But I can't help wondering if his departure may tip other parliamentarians whose enthusiasm has waned into a career re-think.

To be sure, the 200-strong Commons intake of 2010 has been a breath of fresh air - most are energetic, smart and ambitious. But one or two are rather disappointed and disillusioned with parliamentary life.

And many of the individuals concerned could carve themselves a rewarding career outside Westminster. Then there are the MPs of a slightly older vintage, the 2001 and 2005 intakes, who've seen the newcomers leapfrog them into office. They might decide that perpetual backbencherdom is not an alluring prospect.

With the 2015 election approaching, so is the moment when MPs who've had enough will have to tell their local parties and set the process in train to find their successor.

In any even vaguely marginal seat, the parties will want their candidates in place and campaigning a year before the actual vote, so the time for that quiet drink with the local party chair is approaching fast. The Commons saw a considerable turnover in 2010, and it's likely there will be plenty more new faces in 2015, even if the party balance doesn't change much.

And maybe regular infusions of new blood will be no bad thing.

Here's my rundown...

The Commons meets at 2.30pm on Monday for Home Office questions, after which the Conservative Mary Macleod proposes to follow-up the Succession to the Crown Bill by removing male preference in the inheritance of hereditary peerages and estates.

The day's main event (assuming no statements or urgent questions) will be the final phase of the Budget debate, which will focus on the housing proposals announced by George Osborne. The adjournment debate, led by by-election winner Andy Sawford, is on energy intensive industries.

In Westminster Hall (at 2.30pm) the Backbench Business Committee has used new powers to hold two debates on subjects raised in e-petitions which have attracted 100,000 signatures. The first subject is preventable cardiac deaths caused by Sudden Arrhythmic Death Syndrome (SADS) and the debate is led by Liverpool Labour MP Steve Rotheram, who's supporting a campaign by the Oliver King Foundation, set up in memory of a 12-year-old boy who died in March 2011, from SADS.

The objective is to get the government to commit to installing defibrillators in all public buildings - because these can save people who collapse as a result of the condition. SADS is caused by heart rhythm abnormalities, which can lead to the sudden death of young, seemingly healthy people - usually between the ages of 12 and 35. An estimated 12 young people die each week from SADS - and the Foundation argues that some lives could be saved if more defibrillators were available (there are 16 distributed around the Parliamentary estate). Mr Rotheram says he will push for a further debate in the Commons chamber, to give MPs a chance to vote on the issue, if he's not satisfied with the government response.

Second up is a general debate on the e-petition "Stop mass immigration from Bulgarian and Romanians in 2014, when EU restrictions on immigration are relaxed". The Conservative Mark Pritchard leads proceedings.

Over in the Lords (from 2.30pm), questions range across infrastructure spending, suicides in prisons and the definition of poverty in the UK.

The Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill will probably be given its third reading in a matter of minutes and then peers move on to deal with changes made by the Commons to the Crime and Courts Bill.

The main bone of contention is likely to be on the powers it gives to the Home Secretary to change the new National Crime Agency's anti-terrorism role. The government suffered a surprise defeat on this issue when the bill was last before the Lords, and fought back to reverse that defeat in the Commons.

Peers now have to decide whether they want to press the change - there was a majority of 21 votes against the government, which may not be a big enough margin to embolden them to have another go. There may be as many as five votes on various components of the bill - on issues ranging from the treatment of women offenders by the Probation Service to the regulation of bailiffs.

There'll also be considerable debate on the new clauses introduced in the Commons on press regulation - the Conservative peer Lord Lucas has put down a series of amendments dealing with the problem of applying the new system to the internet. One amendment proposes capping the fees bloggers would have to pay for arbitration at a quarter of 1% of turnover; another excludes small businesses from the system altogether, and a third would prevent small publications which have been refused membership of the voluntary regulation system from facing exemplary damages.

Lord Lucas warns that, as it stands, the system would allow "anyone with deep pockets to sink a blogger, by exposing them to the likelihood of punitive damages…"

He also wants to exclude publications which are not substantially about events in the UK, so foreign newspapers are not caught by the system.

Lords procedures require that the clauses will be debated - and Lord Lucas's aim is to get some kind of response to the internet issues raised by the new system. If one of his amendments is carried, the government will have the three-week Easter holiday, in which to respond, and possibly offer its own solution. It will be interesting to see how the Lords reacts, and how the parties vote.

The fun doesn't stop there: the next business is the committee and remaining stages of the emergency bill to deal with a recent High Court judgement on penalties for Jobseeker's Allowance claimants for failure to participate in the Work Programme.

That ruling could cost the taxpayer an estimated £130m in repayments, but the bill to address it came in for strong criticism from the Lords' influential Constitution Committee - which thought it was being rushed through too rapidly. The bill had quite a narrow squeak on Thursday, in a thinly-attended house - and could run into trouble if more peers, particularly on the crossbenches muster against it.

The result could be a late night sitting.

On Tuesday, the Commons meets at 11.30am for questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, and to the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve.

Labour MP David Hanson has a ten minute rule bill requiring candidates in elections who stand as independents to declare if they are members of political parties - his Local Police and Crime Commissioner is Winston Roddick, a Liberal Democrat member who ran as an independent (although there was no particular secret about his party involvement). Mr Hanson has tabled questions to the deputy prime minister on this issue and hopes to put down an amendment next time there's a suitable bill before the House.

The day's two main debates are scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee. The first, led by the Conservative, Dominic Raab, will be on flood insurance.

It's on a motion calling for a rapid agreement between the government and the insurance industry, to renew the long-standing deal under which the industry insures homes in areas at risk of flooding, in return for a government commitment to spending on flood defences. If agreement can't be reached, hundreds of thousands of homes could become uninsurable, with dire implications for their owners, and Mr Raab is concerned about brinkmanship in the talks. His motion has cross-party support and calls for both sides to negotiate in good faith and strike a deal.

There's also an interesting point about environmental spending, with Mr Raab arguing that money might be better spent on flood defences to improve the UK's ability to deal with climate change, rather than on subsidies to low carbon energy.

That's followed by the usual pre-recess adjournment debate - a chance for MPs to raise the issue of their choice. These used to be horrible, flabby, unstructured occasions, with some beleaguered junior minister having to promise to write to backbench MPs about some local A&E or bypass or immigration case, or whatever. Since the advent of the Backbench Business Committee, it has become much better organised, with a relay of ministers answering groups of speeches related to the work of their particular departments.

The final event is an adjournment debate on energy infrastructure and the UK supply chain, led by the Conservative, Peter Aldous. He's worried that UK businesses won't get the full benefit of new government investment in the energy sector and much of the work may go to overseas companies. And after that MPs depart for their Easter break - and will not return until 15 April.

The Lords (2.30pm) begin with the introduction of two new peers - Martha Lane Fox, who was appointed to be the UK Digital Champion, advising the government on the online delivery of public services, and the composer and broadcaster, Michael Berkeley. Both will sit as crossbench or independent peers.

After the ceremonial, it's on to questions to ministers, which cover the deployment of autonomous weapon systems (drones) by UK armed forces and UK government discussions with the Scottish government on the arrangements for the referendum on independence.

Peers then turn to the third reading of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill - where there may be an attempt to press an amendment for a "sunset clause" on the changes it makes to planning powers to impose a quota for affordable housing in new developments. That means a time limit after which the powers expire or have to be reviewed...

Then peers deal with Commons amendments to the Justice and Security Bill. Peers rejected the government's plans for so-called "secret courts" or Closed Material Proceedings, in which a judge can consider evidence, in civil cases with national security implications, that is not revealed to those pressing a claim against the government. The kind of cases involved include claims relating to kidnapping and torture in the war on terror.

The majorities against the government in the votes last December were 87, 99 and 105, which suggests that peers may take some persuading to accept the latest version of the bill. There could be several rounds of "parliamentary ping-pong," with the bill bouncing between the Commons and the Lords, before a final version is agreed.

This can be a time-consuming process, and the end of the Parliamentary year is looming, so it is a little surprising that the Upper House has been given an extra week off, over Easter; because if there is no agreement between the Lords and Commons, the whole bill could be lost. Labour wants to ensure only last resort...

There will also have to be ping-pong on quite a few other bills, so this could be the first of several protracted disagreements between the two houses.

And so to Wednesday, when peers arrive at 11am for question time. The subjects include increasing quantitative easing by £25bn, increasing the proportion of biofuels in road transport fuel and reconnection and rehabilitation programmes for Polish rough sleepers.

Then peers will debate a series of orders and regulations under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. Several are the subjects of motion to regret - which don't actually stop them but put down a marker if problems arise later.

Labour's Lord Bach has one on access to legal advice for people challenging rulings on their benefits, an issue which has led to some ill-tempered exchanges with the Lib Dem leader in the Lords and Justice Minister, Lord McNally.

The crossbencher Lady Grey-Thompson has a regret motion on the "gateway" phone system which will filter some legal advice claims, and the Labour former Attorney General, Lady Scotland, has another regret motion on legal aid entitlement for family law cases, where she's arguing that the proposed rules will deny help to some women facing domestic violence. This last one is extremely likely to be forced to a vote.

The Lords then begin their holiday break, returning to Westminster a week after MPs, on 22 April.

Here's my rundown...

Monday

The Public Accounts Committee goes walkabout to take evidence at Barking Town Hall (in Chair Margaret Hodge's constituency) on capital funding for new school places, based on a report from the National Audit Office - in other words, with a quarter of a million new places needed in schools in England, are the expanding schools getting the buildings they need? The committee will visit a local primary and secondary school in the area to see some of the problems of finding classroom space. Chris Wormald, permanent secretary at the Department of Education, will be quizzed at 3.15pm.

Back on the committee corridor, the Treasury Committee have a busy couple of days as they hold three evidence sessions on the Budget, culminating in an appearance by the Chancellor George Osborne. To tee that up, they speak first to economists from Citigroup, Capital Economics and Goldman Sachs, followed by the tax and spending think-tank, the Institute of Fiscal Studies, followed by John Cridland, the director general of the CBI, and Paul Smee, director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

The Communities and Local Government Committee (at 4.10pm) holds its sixth evidence session on the private rented sector, with the mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales, topping the witness list. Newham introduced compulsory licensing for all landlords in the private rented sector from January 2013.

Tuesday

The Treasury Committee (at 10am) continues to hear from the independent numbers tsar, Robert Chote, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility. It's the quango set up by George Osborne to provide independent economic statistics and forecasts, as it continues its inquiry into the Budget. And in the afternoon, at 2.15pm, the committee reconvenes to hear from the Chancellor himself, George Osborne.

The International Development Committee (at 9.30am) has its second evidence-taking session on Global Food Security. With the G8 event on malnutrition fast approaching, and the NGO campaign on hunger also ongoing, this session is an opportunity for the committee to explore some of the broader strategic issues relating to food security, and to examine the respective roles of various key institutions. The first panel includes representatives of the World Food Programme (WFP), Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). The second panel includes the UK government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, together with the heads of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee (at 11.30am) will hear from Secretary of State Vince Cable in its final evidence session for its inquiry into the Kay Review of UK Equity Markets and Long-term Decision Making - this is a coalition wedge issue. Dr Cable is thought to believe that the City is not good enough at investing in UK industry, and may well highlight disagreements with Conservative colleagues in the Treasury.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee (at 10.30am) takes evidence on support for creative industries from witnesses including Sandie Shaw, chair of the Featured Artists Coalition and the Energy and Climate Change Committee (at 10.30am) examines the Renewable Heat Incentive which is designed to encourage technologies like ground source heat pumps and biomass boilers in homes and businesses. Their manufacturers give evidence.

The first was Lincoln, where the plot centred on the President's attempts to persuade the US Congress to abolish slavery. The second, which I saw last night, was James Graham's wonderful play, This House, being played to packed houses at the National Theatre.

Both shed light on the messy business of persuading elected representatives to vote for something - and anyone who thinks whipping is an inherently evil and corrupt process should go and see both.

This House is set in the Labour and Conservative whips offices in the House of Commons, between 1974 and 1979, when the then Labour government needed extreme whipping to survive, in the face of economic crisis and precarious parliamentary support.

It went from a minority government, to the narrowest of majorities, back to minority status again, as death and defections eroded its numbers. The rival teams of whips, Humphey Atkins and Bernard "Jack" Weatherill, on the Conservative side; and Bob Mellish and Walter Harrison on the Labour side, scheme, manoeuvre and scramble through a series of crises and confrontations. Ill and dying MPs are stretchered into Parliament to vote, the smaller parties are bribed and cajoled, awkward squad MPs are browbeaten and begged.

There's a wonderful scene where the former minister John Stonehouse stages a Reggie Perrin-style disappearance on a beach in Florida, to the contemporary strains of David Bowie's Rock 'n Roll Suicide, only to reappear to face charges of fraud and false accounting, while Harrison insists he can't resign his seat, because the government can't afford to lose a single vote.

There's an odd code of honour between the two teams of whips, and the consequences when it is violated are dire. Harrison is accused of breaking a "pairing" agreement by which MPs from one side who are absent from a vote are cancelled out, by agreement, by MPs from the other side being sent home. Co-operation is withdrawn - and the ill and the dying are forced to attend endless late night votes, and the strain sends more and more MPs to the hospital or the grave.

At the climax of the play, the Labour government faces defeat in a No Confidence vote, and Harrison declines to summon the dying Alfred "Doc" Broughton from his Yorkshire constituency. His last throw is to insist that Weatherill, his opposite number, should honour an agreement to "pair" ill MPs, even though it would mean the government survived, and Weatherill would be finished in Conservative politics.

Weatherill honourably agrees; Harrison balks at finishing him… and the government falls, by a single vote.

And it's a true story. I stumbled across this small footnote to political history in 2004 when I made a documentary for Radio 4 on the 1979 Confidence vote. By then, Jack Weatherill was a peer, having been a distinguished Speaker of the Commons. And Walter Harrison was retired and living in his home town of Wakefield. Despite his legendary exploits as a whip, he was never given the peerage he might have expected…and when Lord Weatherill put me in touch with him, he asked me to report back on his health and comfort, after I travelled up to interview his old sparring partner.

Even in old age, Walter was pretty scary. He told his story in his way, steamrollering over any interjections from me, with perfect recall of his dealings with minor but vital players in the Confidence Vote saga, like the independent republican MP, Frank McGuire. He, on his rare visits from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, had to be kept entertained by a relay of Labour whips, who'd sit and drink with him until each slipped under the table, to be replaced by another colleague.

He monitored the health and sanity of numerous colleagues, fathomed the shifts of opinion and tactics in a dozen smaller parties and monitored the micro politics of every aspect of Westminster life. He fought long and hard to keep his government alive, but ultimately, he wasn't prepared to kill "Doc" Broughton, or ruin a friend on the other side, to buy it a few days of extra life.

What This House does is reveal the seldom-seen side of parliamentary life. The code of honour, the curious friendship, the mutual respect, that somehow co-exists with furious partisanship and festering class resentments and prejudices.

It's not hypocritical, they're not all the same, but they have to work together in order that a democratic Parliament can function.

This House may be a work of imagination, but it has a core of real authenticity.

This House will be showing at cinemas from 16 May.

There was a clear majority in both Commons and Lords for some form of Leveson-style press regulation, and the lesson of the events leading up to Monday's votes on press regulation is that, given enough persistence, a parliamentary majority can find a way to have its way.

And that precedent could reverberate well beyond the issue of press regulation…

What became clear during last weekend was that an alliance of Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative MPs, plus a number of the smaller parties, had the votes to push through amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill to bring in a Leveson-style system. The only way the Conservative section of the government could prevent that was to drop the entire bill, which they were reluctant to do.

And even had they done so, Leveson amendments had already been attached to two other bills in the Lords. So the government would have been confronted with the same choice - allow a vote on the amendments or drop those bills as well.

Some months ago I blogged on an elaborate mechanism to bypass the normal government channels and allow a Leveson Bill to be laid before the Commons - it turns out to be unnecessary. You don't need to bring in a new bill, when you can amend an existing one. In fact, it seems to be possible to write all sorts of things into law in a pretty perfunctory way, during the ping-pong process during which the Lords and Commons deal with each other's amendments, as happened on Monday, when an entire press regulation system was crowbarred into the Crime and Courts Bill in a few hours.

And one of the key procedural lessons of the Leveson saga is that the Lords can add amendments to pretty much any bill they choose on almost any subject they fancy…as Lord Puttnam did with the Defamation Bill, to much huffing from the House authorities.

(Incidentally, part of the deal on Monday was that the Puttnam amendments would be dropped - they'd be removed in the Commons and their lordships wouldn't object…)

In the Commons such amendments would probably be rejected as "out of scope" of a bill, by the Speaker on the advice of the clerks; in the Lords, advice of that kind is offered by the Clerk of the Parliaments, but peers, proudly self-regulating, don't have to accept it, and can go ahead and debate, and accept, any amendments they choose.

To be sure they would probably prefer that a fig-leaf of argument could be made, that the amendments were within scope, and there would need to be an underlying cause that allowed sufficient votes to be mustered. But they have located an important route through the parliamentary maze, for legislating against the will of government.

And these lessons might well be applied to other issues. I've been banging on about the difficulties the Chancellor may encounter if he rejects the views of the Parliamentary Banking Commission on future regulation of the financial sector - he would be a powerful opponent, and in previous parliaments, the fact of his opposition would have been enough to scotch any attempt to bring tougher regulation in. But the lesson of Leveson is that he may not have the votes to stop a tougher system from being foisted on him.

The current Banking Bill provides an obvious vehicle for the influential peers on the Banking Commission (the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Lawson, etc) to amend. And they would have the option of choosing another bill, if they fancied.

As the excellent Constitution Unit blog, which monitors the voting in government defeats in the Lords, demonstrates, the government can lose there, even if Lib Dem peers mostly stick to the Coalition line - a good turnout of crossbenchers and Labour peers, plus, perhaps a few government peers not turning up, can spell defeat. At which point the government would find itself in the uncomfortable position of opposing tougher banking regulation…

And it could cause more discomfort over a variety of issues - carbon reductions targets, the internet monitoring provisions of the becalmed Communications Data Bill, the funding arrangements for social care, and who knows what else.

The Lords has become pretty ungovernable, and if peers keep lobbing difficult issues at MPs and requiring them to vote against their consciences at regular intervals, things could get pretty messy, especially as the election draws nearer.