Proposals for a law that could see some tourists paying a tax for staying overnight will begin their way through the Welsh Parliament this month.

Under the plans councils will be given the power to introduce a small “visitor levy” to raise money.

The law will include a registration scheme for accommodation providers, which the government says is needed to support the levy.

The Welsh Conservatives said a tourism tax “will risk jobs”.

A statement from Finance Secretary Mark Drakeford and Economy Secretary Rebecca Evans said the levy and registration bill will be introduced to the Senedd on 26 November.

“The levy will raise additional funds for local authorities to support the long-term sustainability of our tourism industry,” they said.

“Each local authority will be able to decide whether to introduce a visitor levy in its area, based on local circumstances.”

They said they had received feedback that a form of registration was needed to support the levy.

“This has informed our decision to include a national register of all those providing visitor accommodation in Wales within the Bill.”

They added that the registration scheme was a first step towards licensing, which they said was a “means of helping to establish a level playing field and to ensure visitors have confidence in the high standards available throughout Wales”.

Plans for a licensing scheme for accommodation providers, including all holiday homes, will be part of a separate bill.

It was previously reported that it would be introduced by the end of the year. The statement did not give a date, and on Tuesday the Welsh government said it would be within the Senedd term, which ends mid-2026.

Andrew RT Davies, leader of the Welsh Conservatives in the Senedd, said: “We’ve been absolutely clear from the start that this policy is the wrong one for Wales.

“A tourism tax will risk jobs at a time when businesses are being clobbered by Labour, it will impose red tape”, he said, adding: “Our tourism industry should be nurtured by the Welsh government, not hamstrung by new taxes.”

Five weeks after Sue Gray resigned as the prime minister’s chief of staff, with the prospect of her being sacked hovering close, she is off again.

And just like last time, even the manner of her departure is contested.

We have been told the prime minister had decided to withdraw the offer for Ms Gray to be his envoy to the nations and regions.

And, we understand, the cabinet secretary, the most senior civil servant in the country, had spoken to her to confirm this.

This chain of events is not disputed by other figures in government.

But Ms Gray is adamant it was her decision, we are told, and she never spoke directly to the prime minister about it.

A friend of Ms Gray told the BBC: “Sue has taken a decision not to take the role. She’s going to focus on other things.”

They added: “She’s taken time to think about it properly, talking to stakeholders, but ultimately she’s decided she doesn’t want to do it.”

It appears the prime minister had grown tired of Ms Gray’s failure to actually start the paid, part-time job that she had been demoted into when she left Downing Street.

Given the 38 days which have gone by since it was publicly known she had been offered the new job she had yet to start, it had been clear for some time that she didn’t want to do it.

It seems reasonable to conclude, at the very least, that both sides were having second thoughts.

It also seems reasonable to say that a second bout of messy and not entirely consistent briefing from each camp underlines the central truth in all of this – the hurt, the rows, the anger, the mistrust which has been there for all to see.

Her apparent lack of enthusiasm was almost immediately evident, when she failed to turn up at the first ever meeting of a new Council of the Nations and Regions in Edinburgh just days into the job.

What followed were daily questions to the prime minister’s official spokesman from reporters about whether she had taken up her post.

After weeks of stonewalling, an answer: no.

One insider got in touch about the envoy role and said: “We all thought it was a bad idea that would lead to endless drama and probably another resignation down the line.”

In other words, what might have seemed like a mutually convenient layby into which Ms Gray could be shunted, ended up perpetuating a rather public soap opera.

Some sceptics had seen the new gig as a non-job from the start. The government saying it isn’t looking to fill the vacancy will do little to dispel that instinct from those who thought it all along.

The Scottish National Party MP Pete Wishart mocked the news, telling the Commons: “We got the crushing news today that our British envoy to Scotland will no longer be coming there to represent this Parliament.”

“We were practicing the street parties and the haka just to be sure that she was properly welcome to the northern territories,” he added.

So, what might happen next?

Some have pondered that Ms Gray may be offered a seat in the House of Lords – but would that revive all of these issues again?

Incidentally, beyond all the noise about Ms Gray it is worth reflecting on other more recent changes in Downing Street – both in personnel and managerial instinct.

Two Blair-era Labour advisers are returning to the heart of government in senior roles – Jonathan Powell as national security adviser and Liz Lloyd as director of policy delivery and innovation.

This reconfiguration coincides with Sir Keir Starmer coming to a view four-and-a-half months into the job as prime minister that it isn’t sufficient for No 10 to merely empower government departments to crack on with their work.

They need “a strong team captain”, as one source put it.

“This is the broader part of the post-Sue reset,” the source added, saying it amounted to a “significant reassessment” in how Sir Keir wanted to approach a job he has been learning how best to grapple with.

Ms Gray has been a case study in the early difficulties of that grappling, which Downing Street might now finally hope to have put behind it.

MPs have backed plans to get rid of all hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

A bill making its way through Parliament would abolish the 92 seats reserved for peers who inherit their titles through their families.

MPs voted for the government proposals by 435 votes to 73. The bill will now go to the Lords, where it is expected to face tough opposition.

The Conservatives opposed the plans, with shadow Cabinet Office minister Alex Burghart claiming the government was “seeking to remove established scrutineers in order to replace them with Labour appointees”.

But during a debate in the Commons, some MPs also called for the government to go further.

Conservative Sir Gavin Williamson put forward proposals for Church of England bishops to be removed from the Lords but these were rejected by MPs.

He argued it was “fundamentally unfair” for a block of clerics to “have a right and a say over our legislation”.

“For me, as someone who is an Anglican, I cannot see why I have a greater right for greater representation than my children who are Catholics,” he said.

He added that the 26 bishops in the Lords only come from England and are “probably not reflective of today’s world”.

SNP MP Pete Wishart said the unelected House of Lords should be abolished completely, adding that “if you represent the people, you should be voted by the people”.

He told the Commons the government’s proposals were “pathetic” and “should have been done centuries ago”.

As well as promising to bring about “immediate modernisation” to the Lords by abolishing hereditary peers, Labour’s general election manifesto pledged to introduce a mandatory retirement age of 80 for members of the upper house.

It also said the party was committed to replacing the House of Lords with “an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations”.

But these changes are not included in the bill and the government has not set out a timeline for when they will be delivered.

Defending the government’s approach, Cabinet Office minister Ellie Reeves said previous attempts to reform the Lords “all in one go” had failed and the government wanted to see “immediate reform”.

She added that the government would then consult on how to deliver its other manifesto commitments on the House of Lords.

Reeves said the government “values the good work done by hereditary peers” but the bill was “a matter of principle”.

“In the 21st Century it cannot be right for there to be places in our legislature reserved for those born into certain families,” she told the Commons.

Meanwhile, peers were also taking part in their own debate on the issue of Lords reform.

Conservative peer Lord True was among those to criticise the government’s plans.

The shadow leader of the House of Lords argued the aim of the bill was “partisan” removing “88 peers who do not align themselves with Labour and four who do”.

He also said the move would cause “great hurt”.

“The execution will have to be done at close quarters, brushing shoulders in the lobbies as we go to vote for the removal of much-respected colleagues.”

Fellow Conservative peer and former cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean accused Labour of “a disgraceful piece of political gerrymandering” aimed at “weakening the scrutiny” of the government.

“If the party opposite continues with this act of constitutional vandalism they ain’t seen nothing yet,” he warned.

The job of the House of Lords is to scrutinise the work of government and recommend changes to proposed legislation.

Most peers are appointed by the monarch on the prime minister’s advice.

The majority of hereditary peers were abolished in 1999 under the last Labour government, leaving only 92 in a compromise deal with the Conservatives.

A man has been arrested after reports that a person was seen carrying several knives outside the Houses of Parliament.

Officers were called to the scene in central London at 14:00 GMT on Tuesday where they apprehended the suspect, the Met Police said.

The 34-year-old was arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place and has been taken to a police station.

No injuries have been reported, the force added.

Police cars were seen parked in front of Carriage Gates – one of the most prominent entrances to the Palace of Westminster – following the incident on Tuesday afternoon.

A man wearing a red hooded top was seen handcuffed and surrounded by police.

The area was cordoned off during the incident and the entrance was closed.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced fresh climate change targets at a global summit, saying he wants the UK to lead on cutting climate emissions.

The UK will now aim for an 81% cut in its emissions by 2035, he told the UN conference of parties (COP29) in Azerbaijan.

The target updates a 78% pledge by 2035 under the previous Conservative government, although that also included international aviation and shipping emissions, and goes beyond another pledge of a 68% reduction by 2030.

Sir Keir insisted the government would not “tell people how to live their lives” but the target was vital to the UK’s future prosperity and energy security.

The prime minister said the new target was based on recommendations from the UK’s independent climate change committee (CCC) aimed at limiting global warming to 1.5C compared to levels in 1990.

Sir Keir would not be drawn on his views about president-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to cut climate rules during his election campaign.

He said: “Make no mistake, the race is on for the clean energy jobs of the future, the economy of tomorrow, and I don’t want to be in the middle of the pack – I want to get ahead of the game”.

Announcing a £1bn investment in a wind turbine project in Hull, which he said was creating 1,300 local jobs, Starmer said the world was standing at a “critical juncture in the climate crisis”.

The UK has called for other countries to match the new target, following stark warnings from the United Nations that the world is on course for a 3.1C rise without further cuts.

The latest target is broadly in line with the UK’s legally-binding carbon-cutting path towards net zero emissions by 2050, contained in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Since taking power in July, Labour has ended an effective ban on new onshore wind projects and pledged not to issue any new oil and gas exploration licenses in the North Sea, as well as closing the UK’s last coal power plant in September.

The switch towards greener energy has already halved the UK’s annual greenhouse gas emissions since 1990 – but the CCC has previously said further reductions will be difficult without lifestyle changes.

The government advisers said taxes on meat and dairy might be needed if people do not voluntarily reduce their consumption of the products, and there should be moves to phase out the use of petrol cars.

Speaking at the summit, Sir Keir said the new UK target would be “difficult” but “achievable”, and he wanted government to “tread lightly on people’s lives”.

“It’s not about telling people how to live their lives – I’m not interested in that,” he added.

“I am interested in making sure their energy bills are stable, that we’ve got energy independence, and that we also along the way pick up the next generation of jobs.”

All countries who have signed up to the Paris Agreement should submit their latest carbon reduction targets by a deadline of February next year and a copy of that memo, known as the Information to facilitate Clarity, Transparency and Understanding (ICTU), will be presented to MPs before then.

Fewer than 1,000 patients a year in England and Wales are expected to choose assisted dying should the law pass, the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater said, as she outlined her bill setting out the change.

But MPs opposed to the measure said they were deeply concerned by several components, including that the proposed legislation did not bar doctors from suggesting assisted dying as an option to patients.

MPs who spoke on the panel expressed significant doubts about whether the legislation would pass the first parliamentary stage in the Commons on 29 November. Leadbeater said she would make the case “literally every day” but that there were strong views on all sides.

“This is potentially one of the biggest things we will do as members of parliament in our careers,” Leadbeater said.

The Conservative MP Kit Malthouse, who backs the bill, said he thought a significant number of MPs who had voted against the measure in 2015 had changed their minds.

But Dr Peter Prinsley, a Labour MP who is also a consultant, said he believed some of the new, younger MPs were wavering. “I’m not as confident of this thing passing as I was before I started having these conversations,” he said.

“If you’re maybe a bit younger and you haven’t encountered people who die in horrible circumstances, or take their own lives or whatever, maybe you’re a little bit removed from it. Anybody I speak to who has experienced things as they are now cannot understand why we’ve not made this change.”

Prinsley said he feared many MPs would abstain and urged them to vote – whatever they decided. “I don’t think that abstaining, which people may be tempted to do, is a neutral act. I think that people need to make a decision about this, and that’s what I’m encouraging people to do,” he said.

Setting out the safeguards in the bill, Leadbeater and the Labour peer Charlie Falconer said there was no legal risk of its scope being widened by the courts on human rights grounds, because of the strictly limited definitions in the bill and the failure of previous challenges in British and European courts.

Leadbeater said the numbers of those taking up the option would be low because of the strict criteria: assisted dying would be offered only to patients with a terminal diagnosis with a prognosis of less than six months. It would not be available to people with longer to live who may be suffering, such as those in the earlier stages of motor neurone disease.

The procedure has to be self-administered, Leadbeater said – in jurisdictions where doctors are allowed to help patients take their own lives, the numbers are higher.

Leadbeater defended the fact that the bill did not prohibit doctors from discussing assisted dying with patients – which has caused controversy in jurisdictions such as Canada. Doctors will not be obliged to speak to patients about it, the bill says, but must use their judgment.

The MP said the British Medical Association thought it was necessary that doctors could “discuss the range of options that are available to patients”.

But Dr David Nicholls, a consultant on the panel, said he would be disinclined to do so. “That’s not something I would necessarily [do],” he said. “The risk is, you don’t know what that patient thinks.”

The bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales, has safeguards including lengthy prison sentences for coercion and powers for judges to cross-examine patients.

Two doctors and a high court judge must sign off any decision, which Leadbeater said would mean a full hearing with evidence from the patient and doctors – although in practice the judge would check only that the terms of the act had been met, rather than examining motivation.

Lord Falconer, the former attorney general who is supporting the bill, said he disagreed that the act could be challenged in court and expanded. He said it was possible for a case to be brought by disabled adults who could say the bill was discriminatory, but he believed any such challenge would have no prospect of success.

“The English courts and the European court of human rights in Strasbourg have said time and time and time again, assisted dying is not something prescribed by the convention,” he said.

“It is for legislatures to decide … they recognise there are spiritual, there are religious, there are ethical approaches that differ from one country to another. Any such application would be hopeless,” he said.