The King's Speech: The Labour Government's legislative agenda

As expected, the King's Speech confirms that the Government will introduce legislation that will "introduce a new deal for working people to ban exploitative practices and enhance employment rights" – Labour's manifesto made a number of pledges that we discussed in more detail here. The Government has promised to consult with businesses and unions before finalising the small print, but the Employment Bill will abolish the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal rights and will ban the use of 'exploitative' zero hours contracts and the practice of 'fire and rehire' in the coming weeks. A single enforcement body will be introduced, and the rights of trade unions will be enhanced. In the meantime, minimum wage and sick pay are likely to rise.  

In addition to the Employment Rights Bill, the Government will also introduce a draft bill that extends pay gap reporting requirements to include disability and ethnicity pay (Draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill). This Bill will also enshrine in the law the right to equal pay for disabled people and those from ethnic minorities, in order to try to make it easier for people from those groups to bring claims to enforce their rights.

Trade unions and employers alike will be watching closely to see how the worker related legislation will unfold.

Authors: Will Winch and Liz Hunter

"My Ministers will get Britain building, including through planning reform"

The King's Speech includes a commitment to bring forward a Planning and Infrastructure Bill, aiming to "accelerate the delivery of high quality infrastructure and housing" or, as The Times headline put it on the morning of the speech, "Locals will lose right to block new homes".

We wait to see the legislation but, in the meantime, expect housing targets to be reinstated through a revised National Planning Policy Statement. We anticipate local councils will have to identify land for future housing needs, and if they don’t, then central government may impose house-building targets on them. The Conservatives tried something similar but were put off by the political cost of forcing delivery where houses were needed due to local objection.

We're interested by the contrast between this interventionist, top-down approach and another statement two paragraphs down: "My Government believes greater devolution of decision making is a key driver of economic growth. My Ministers will introduce an English Devolution Bill and legislation giving new powers to metro mayors and combined authorities." We wonder where the balance will be struck between local democracy and centralised policymaking.

Most discussion of town and country planning focuses on building enough homes to meet the population's housing needs. In addition, the Government has committed itself to simplifying the consenting process for major infrastructure projects. There are also other property sectors that would benefit from a less sclerotic approval process, such as the need for logistics premises to meet the expanding demand for online delivery, and modernised offices to tempt workers back into the physical workplace.

We discuss the Government's planning reform proposals in more detail here.

Author: Johnny Kelly

The King's Speech sets out the new Government's plans to strength border security, crack down on illegal migration and reform the asylum system. Proposals include the establishment of a new Border Security Command to tackle small boat crossings and people smugglers, end hotel use, increase returns and "fix the broken asylum system".

Whilst enhancing the powers available to officials to tackle organised crime seems sensible, this does little to address the underlying issues that drive people to flee their homes and make the difficult crossing across the Channel. Many refugees flee horrific circumstances in their home country and need a clear alternative route available to them. It has always been a problem that individuals can only claim asylum in the UK once they have entered, and fresh thinking in this area, such as an option for a visa category to allow people to legally apply for asylum from overseas, and have their claims decided ahead of travel, would be welcome. We hope that the Government engages in consultation with key stakeholders actively engaged in this field to ensure any new system is workable and fit for purpose.    

The briefing notes to the King's Speech also reinforce Labour's commitment to clear the asylum backlog. However, the backlog as at March 2024 was 86,460 cases waiting an initial decision, relating to 188,329 people. These figures do not include the many cases also currently being reviewed at the immigration tribunal. Even though recruiting more staff should go some way to alleviating pressures, tough decisions will need to be made as to how resources will be allocated and which applications will be prioritised. We understand from Government figures that the total asylum support costs exceeded £5 billion last year, and a potential way to address some of this financial impact may be to grant people claiming asylum the right to work. Asylum claims can take many years to be determined and granting the right to work would in turn reduce the level of support required, enable refugees to integrate into wider society, whilst also offering an additional pool of individuals for business to recruit from.

The UNCHR recently introduced recommendations to the Government on taking measures to uphold the right to seek asylum and better protecting refugees in the UK and globally. We hope that some of the above, along with consultations with those actively engaged in this field, will go some way to addressing their priority actions.

Authors: Fran Rance and Jessica Good

The King's Speech announced that a new "fiscal lock" will be introduced under the Budget Responsibility Bill, which will ensure that any significant changes to taxation or spending are subject to independent assessment by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The Bill aims to "reinforce market credibility and public trust by preventing large-scale unfunded commitments that are not subject to an OBR fiscal assessment". It is a measure introduced to prevent market turmoil following uncosted announcements and will apply to permanent tax changes only.

As expected, the King's Speech confirmed that measures will be introduced to remove the exemption from VAT for private school fees and, no doubt, such measures will be subject to the scrutiny of the OBR under the new Budget Responsibility Bill.

No further announcements were included in the King's Speech concerning the Government's legislative programme for the main taxes, including the trailed proposed changes to the taxation of non-doms and the change to the taxation of carried interest. The Chancellor has already committed not to increase National Insurance, VAT and income tax rates; being silent on both capital gains tax and inheritance tax. We can expect more clarity at the Autumn Statement, the date of which, at the time of writing, has not been set.

Authors: Carol Katz and Andrew Goldstone

The King's Speech contained a few surprises for those working in data. Notably, some of the provisions of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which just failed to get enacted at the end of the last session of Parliament, appear to have been revived, though details are sparse at the moment.

The revived provisions which appear to be proposed will appear in a Digital Information and Smart Data Bill and include ones dealing with: the reform of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO); digital identity verification; "Smart Data" measures; broad consent provisions in the area of scientific research; and a National Underground Asset Register.

It seems that the ICO reforms would restart the process to introduce a national "Information Commission", with a CEO, board and chair (rather than having all powers and functions vested in one Commissioner). When this was proposed previously, the current Commissioner, John Edwards, was supportive, and that will presumably remain the case.

Similarly, there is unlikely to be much controversy about Smart Data systems, scientific research enabling and the National Underground Asset Register (which would aim comprehensively to map pipes, cables, tunnels underground, to make public planning and excavating easier and less disruptive).

However, the revival of the digital identity verification measures (sometimes referred to under the banner of "digital ID cards") is surprising. Very shortly after the new Government had been formed, both the Home Secretary and the Business Secretary had appeared to rule them out. They had not been referred to in Labour's manifesto, and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had said they were "not our approach". It will be interesting to discover what has changed in the short intervening period.

Also of note is the minimal reference to Artificial Intelligence (AI), other than one line in the King's Speech itself, stating the Government will ("seek to establish the appropriate legislation to place requirements on those working to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence models") and a reference in the briefing notes discussion to keeping pace with technological advances in relation to the Product Safety and Metrology Bill. This was despite suggestions reported widely in the press that an "AI Bill" would be introduced. Given the reference to 'appropriate legislation' in relation to AI though in the King's Speech, we anticipate that there will be further consideration of this issue, including, we assume, consultation with relevant stakeholders.  

Elsewhere, there is to be a Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, "putting regulators on a stronger footing", and "mandating increased incident reporting to give government better data on cyber attacks, including where a company has been held to ransom".

Author: Jon Baines

As expected, the Government has announced a Renters Rights Bill which appears to continue with the proposals set out by the previous government in the Renters (Reform) Bill. The planned abolition of s21 is set to proceed, there will remain cases in which the landlord can regain possession (although we understand that there may be some watering down of the additional grounds proposed by the previous government) and there are no planned rent caps or statutory reviews. The Government maintains the promise that tenants will be able to challenge rent increases and there will be a ban on rental bidding wars. The ombudsman service (landlord's redress scheme) remains and could be useful, particularly if it provides resolution on possession proceedings in light of current delays in the courts. The statement that Awab's law will be applied to the private rented sector indicates an extension to what we may expect in regulations relating to the application of the decent homes standard as proposed in the original draft legislation. 

It will be interesting to see how quickly the form of the Renters Rights Bill can be finalised and brought into force, thereby sounding the end of s21 notices. One reason for the stall was concern about lack of capacity in the court system to deal with landlord applications to terminate tenancies on other grounds which must inevitably increase.

Authors: Alison Taylor and Idina Glyn

"Reinvigoration" of commonhold has been announced, but with a consultation to come which will build on the findings raised in the Law Commission report on the subject from 2020. There is recognition that commonhold needs reform before it is fit for purpose, which will resonate with many conveyancers. Given the changes in legislation, practice and mindset required, as well as the financial upheaval of those changes, it will likely take some time before we see any draft legislation on the point, let alone see that legislation coming into force.

The end to "the injustice of forfeiture" is promised, but the focus is on small debts, so it may be that forfeiture simply becomes subject to a high threshold before proceedings can be commenced. The intention to tackle unaffordable ground rents has been confirmed and it will be interesting to see how this will be dealt with given its controversial nature.   

Separately to the new bill, but on a related topic, the Government has stated the intention to bring the outstanding provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 into force. However, a raft of secondary legislation will be required for many of the provisions to take effect. This promises to be a very busy time!

Authors: Alison Taylor and Idina Glyn

The previous Football Governance Bill was one of the highest profile legislative casualties following Rishi Sunak's decision to call the General Election. At the time, the Bill, which arguably represented the most significant shake up to football in this country since the laws of the game were codified in 1863, was progressing relatively swiftly through Parliament. It contained a number of controversial elements – not least the creation of an Independent Regulator for Football (IREF) to oversee the men's game in England, which would ultimately have powers to decide whether clubs could compete in the professional game, as well as the ability for the IREF to redistribute amounts from the Premier League to the English Football League (EFL) where agreement on a new deal could not be reached.

The big question was how far a Labour Government would deviate from the previous proposals that generally had been welcomed by all sides of the House? The short answer appears to be not very far at all. This is despite the fact that senior figures within the Labour party suggested on the campaign trail that the previous Football Governance Bill did not go far enough and that Labour was planning to “look at everything again that was in Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review” (a pre-cursor to the Bill).

As a result, some of the previous issues are likely to remain unanswered for now – in particular, the fact that many of the provisions within the Bill could potentially fall foul of some of FIFA's own rules. Under FIFA’s statutes, for example, member associations (including the English Football Association) must act “independently and without undue influence from third parties”. FIFA’s fear is that football and politics do not mix well and therefore FIFA is keen to prevent overzealous governments from getting too involved in the running of the “beautiful game”. FIFA has prior form when it comes to suspending other member associations in the past when it comes to governmental interference. FIFA also insists on all disputes being heard by way of arbitration and in FIFA's statutes there is a prohibition on “recourse to ordinary courts of law”, which could also be a problem given that the previous Bill suggested that decisions of the IREF could be challenged to the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

In summary, whilst the King's Speech announcement will be welcomed in many quarters, particularly amongst fan groups and the EFL who will no doubt be excited about the prospect of an imposed and improved financial deal that may result, it remains to be seen whether the Government will try to address some of the other concerns that were raised last time around.

Author: Simon Leaf

This Bill seeks to put into statute the steps foreshadowed in Labour's sewage pollution plan and its manifesto. At its core is a doubling down on personal accountability for water company directors, proposing personal criminal liability, the banning of bonuses and direct accountability to consumers under a new code of conduct for failings on environmental standards. This approach seeks to appease public pressure for action to address the national scandal of sewage pollution, as well as outrage at poor levels of service and underinvestment in infrastructure, while bosses and shareholders have received significant payments in bonuses and dividends. The Government acknowledges that major infrastructure investments are a long-term matter and has warned that change will not happen overnight. In the meantime, the pressure of a tide of potential civil litigation against the water companies is already rising following the recent Supreme Court judgment in Manchester Ship Canal v United Utilities.

The specific provisions of the Bill include:

• Strengthening regulation to ensure water bosses face personal criminal liability for lawbreaking
• Giving the water regulator new powers to ban the payment of bonuses if environmental standards are not met
• Boosting accountability for water executives through a new ‘code of conduct’ for water companies, so customers can summon board members and hold executives to account
• Introducing new powers to bring automatic and severe fines
• Requiring water companies to install real-time monitors at every sewage outlet with data independently scrutinised by the water regulators

Author: Alex Rhodes and Dan Gray

Safety and regulatory issues were prioritised as part of the King's Speech. Legislation will be introduced to focus on the safety and security of public venues in order to "keep the British public safe from terrorism". The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill will fulfil the Government's manifesto pledge of bringing into force "Martyn's Law", which is designed to make public venues more secure and safer for public use. The Bill will require those responsible for certain venues to put in place anti-terrorism measures to mitigate the harm that could occur in the event of such an attack taking place.

The impact of COVID-19 and several changes in government personnel have led to significant delays in processing this legislative change, but we are hopeful that this law will now be made into a reality.

It is encouraging to see the Government address serious safety risks in this way, not only by promoting the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, but by addressing wider risks such as product safety, promoting the wellbeing of children and modernisation of the Mental Health Act so it is fit for purpose. The direction of travel is clearly working towards a society that prioritises keeping people safe, and businesses must adopt a proactive and preventative approach to safety now rather than later.

Author: Kizzy Augustin

The issue of public accountability, first raised in response to the Grenfell public inquiry, was re-introduced during the King's Speech, as the Government has now committed to bringing forward the "Hillsborough Law" – a bill that aims to secure greater transparency and accountability in the provision of public services. This will be achieved by, amongst other things, placing a legal duty of candour on public servants and public authorities that seeks to ensure the previously defensive culture amongst the public sector is eradicated.

Many will welcome a more universally transparent approach by authorities involved in public inquiries and inquests. We are also looking forward to seeing the outcome of the Government's efforts to provide adequate assistance for bereaved families, interested parties and core participants involved in inquests and public inquiries, especially when attempts to secure funding for those that desperately deserve answers in respect of victims of disasters or state-related deaths have previously been made very difficult. It is hoped that this Bill will truly be the "catalyst for a changed culture" in the UK.

Author: Kizzy Augustin

After failing to make the cut in the last King's speech, the creation of the "Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority" (ARGA) as successor to the Financial Reporting Council has finally made the list. In a move welcomed by the FRC, this will create the statutory framework needed to implement the more robust audit and governance regulatory regime first recommended after the collapse of Carillion over five years ago. In a 2018 review Sir John Kingman had described the system of audit regulation in the UK as "a ramshackle house" and "built on weak foundations".  We reported on the background to this reform here and here. 

Author: Kate Higgins

As expected, in view of Labour's manifesto pledges affecting the LGBTQIA+ community, the King's Speech announced that the Government will "bring forward a full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices". The Government will propose new offences which will target conversion practices which existing legislation does not already cover, whilst ensuring that people exploring their gender identity and sexual orientation, and those supporting them, remain free to do so. The Government has emphasised that a meaningful ban must be the result of extensive collaboration, with the Government pledging to listen to "all viewpoints and concerns with respect".

Following years of uncertainty as to whether the ban on conversion practices would make it into the legislature, and in the event it did so, whether the trans community would receive any protections, this is a welcome step forward for the LGBTQIA+ community. It is hoped that the scope of the new offences and punishments attached to them will serve as a robust deterrent to those practicing conversion therapy and bring sufficient protections to victims. Conversion practices occur both in religious and therapeutic settings, as well as in the home. To be effective, it will be necessary for the ban to cover all settings, including when conversion practices occur in private, familial relationships. The full force of the ban is yet to be determined, but campaigners will welcome this step in the right direction.

Authors: Josh Green and George Irving

The briefing materials supporting the King's Speech also include reference to the Arbitration Bill, which was introduced during the last Parliament but was abandoned during the wash-up when the general election was called. While the broad cross-party support for the Bill means its return is perhaps unsurprising, no mention was made of it by Labour in its election manifesto, and this is good news for arbitration practitioners. The Bill aims to build upon the strong foundation of the Arbitration Act 1996, which has secured London's position as one of the most attractive forums for international arbitration, by clarifying points of uncertainty and building upon existing arbitration practice.

Unfortunately, there is no reference to revival of another Bill which was lost during the wash-up, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill. This Bill, which was intended to reverse last year's Supreme Court's decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc) & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors (2023), also had broad cross-party support and it is disappointing that it has not yet returned to the legislative agenda. Whether it will do so in another form, remains to be seen.

Author: Leah Alpren-Waterman