The state opening of Parliament typically begins with a speech given by the Monarch, where the Government outlines its upcoming political and legislative priorities. The first speech following a general election sets the tone for the new administration. With parliamentary business resuming this week, this blog summarises what we know about the Labour Government’s agenda.
Carrying over good ideas
The undertone behind the King’s Speech on 17 July was “serious government”, “security, fairness, and opportunity for all.” In line with standard practice, it mentions 25 high-profile bills, while the accompanying policy paper announced around 40 in total. According to the Institute for Government, this is the highest number of bills to be announced since 2005.
At least six bills are not founded on Labour’s own initiative but on proposals by the previous Conservative Government. Some bills extend beyond ideological lines because of their importance – such as the Holocaust Memorial Bill which facilitates the building of a memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. Although the decision to establish this memorial was made in 2016, delays were incurred in the planning process and by a procedural challenge by the London Historic Parks and Garden Trust based on an Act passed in 1900. The Holocaust Memorial Bill is a hybrid bill, which means that its proposals affect both the general public and targeted groups. Because this bill has been carried over to the House of Lords for its second reading, it will not restart parliamentary scrutiny from scratch. The decision to carry over a bill is a political one and is usually made by the “usual channels” (government and opposition whips). Another hybrid bill that has also been carried over is the High-Speed Rail Bill which secures the powers to construct a high-speed rail network between London and the West-midlands.
While another four (Conservative proposed) bills are to be re-introduced, they will need to begin their parliamentary stages from scratch. Two of these were previously abandoned partly due to opposition from Conservative backbenchers. The Renters Reform Bill – which tried to prohibit no-fault evictions – was shelved due to Conservative opposition to strengthening the position of tenants. Conservative plans to create a “smoke-free generation” were also deeply unpopular. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill sought to prohibit the sale of tobacco to those born after January 2009 (clause 1(1)) and would have conferred upon the Secretary of State powers to make regulations the contents and commercial display of smoking products (clauses 11, 61, 62). At the Bill’s second reading, it was supported by Labour, but opposed by 58 Conservative backbenchers, who felt that it that was overly paternalistic. Labour’s plans to reintroduce this bill have faced similar criticisms by the press and hospitality sector – not least because the Government might go step further and is currently considering a ban on smoking in outdoor areas such as beer gardens, pubs and restaurants. When questioned last week, the Prime Minister emphasised that around 80,000 people every year lose their lives because of smoking, described some of these deaths as “preventable.”
The remaining two bills to be re-introduced are the Arbitration and the Football Governance bills. Based largely on recommendations by the Law Commission, the Arbitration Bill updates the Arbitration Act 1996. Amongst other issues, it codifies arbitrators’ duty of disclosure, strengthens their immunity following resignation or removal and empowers them to dispose of issues which have no real prospect of success (clauses 2, 3-4, and 7). By contrast, the Football Governance Bill is much longer – around 126 pages – and seeks to establish an entirely new system of licensing and oversight for PL and EFL football clubs headed by an Independent Football Regulator.
Overview of some new proposals
Most of the Government’s announced legislative and policy proposals are, however, new. For example, in relation to finance, the Government is committed to ensuring that all significant tax and spending changes will come to be independently assessed by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility. The Government is committed to “prioritising wealth creation” through a new Industrial Strategy Council, which it hopes will oversee a rise in living standards. Planning reforms have been proposed as a means of improving infrastructure quality. In relation to national security, they plan to bring forward bills to improve the security of public venues and to impose harsher penalties on violence against women. In relation to defence, commitments to a strong NATO were unequivocal, and the Government has promised to sign a new security pact with European nations.
But some constitutional proposals seem vague. The Government has stated that ministers will “strengthen the integrity of elections” and encourage democratic participation. It has proposed the establishment of a modernisation committee to reform parliamentary procedures, which has been analysed in depth by the Constitution Unit. Other proposals include a “Hillsborough Law” to introduce a duty of candour for civil servants and the House of Lords Hereditary Peers Bill to evict the remaining 92 hereditary Peers from participating in Parliament, which is an uncontroversial move. But it remains unclear whether this is only the first stage of turning the House of Lords into an Assembly of the Regions and Nations, or whether the Government will digress towards more modest reforms such as strengthening the House of Lords Appointments Commission and culling the size of the Upper House only. Generally speaking, many proposals echo the tone of “security and stability”, but their content cannot be judged blind based on a few bullet points. At the time of writing, only 13 relevant bills have been published, and most of these do not speak to the heart of the Government’s agenda.
Constitutional questions on legislative form
Since the sheer number of bills shows a high degree of ambition, there are important questions surrounding legislative form and the extent to which Parliament will hold the Government to account for these new policies. In recent years, three parliamentary committees have criticised the inaccessibility of legislation generally and the upward-shifting boundary between primary and delegated legislation, which enables the Government to introduce wide-ranging changes through a less rigorous legislative process. As explained in a previous blogpost, these committees expressed great alarm over the extent to which parliamentary accountability and the rule of law had been undermined by trends in delegated law-making. Unlike primary legislation, delegated legislation usually cannot be amended, is seldom debated and the prospect of parliamentary rejection is very low – it has been described as a way to legislate through the backdoor. But recent parliamentary warnings have fallen on deaf ears.
When the Government finally publishes its full legislative programme, three questions must be asked:
- How many bills amount to “skeleton legislation” where the substance of policy is largely absent or determined overwhelmingly by delegated legislation?
- To what extent do new bills respect parliamentary committee warnings on the threshold between primary legislation, delegated legislation, and guidance?
- To what extent are these bills and their accompanying explanatory documents reasonably clear and accessible?
Regardless of policy content, the form of these bills will provide an indication of the new Government’s attitude toward upholding constitutional principles. Legislation will inevitably have to be long and detailed and due to the scarcity parliamentary time, some policy issues will inevitably need to be introduced in regulations. Based on the new Attorney General’s swearing in speech, though, we can have some hope that our legislative process might improve under the new Government. After emphasising the rule of law, Richard Hermer KC explicitly committed to “not abusing the use of secondary legislation” and to “upholding the highest standards in how we legislate” through increasing accessibility and legal certainty. We must hope the Government live up to this ideal across its legislative agenda.
Tasneem Ghazi.
Tasneem is a first year PhD student at the UCL Faculty of Laws. Tasneem previously completed the Barrister Training Course while working part-time as a research assistant at the Constitution Unit. In 2021, she interned at the Institute for Government and at the UK in a Changing Europe. Tasneem holds an MA in History from King’s College London, and an LLB in Politics, Philosophy and Law.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.