Following the King’s speech on Wednesday, Lisa James assesses its pledges on the constitution, which included reforms to devolution, the House of Lords and government transparency. What should we expect to see in the new parliament’s first session, what might happen without legislation, and what might follow in future sessions?

At the state opening of parliament on Wednesday, the King’s speech laid out the government’s legislative programme for the current parliamentary session. Among the 40 bills announced were a number relating to the constitution – but various constitutional policies previously announced by Labour were omitted, at least for now. Some could be pursued by non-legislative means, while others may be set to follow in a later session.

What was included?

Perhaps the most substantial constitutional material in the King’s speech related to devolution. The government promises an English Devolution Bill which will, among other things, create a legislative framework for devolution, devolve further powers to local level, and reform governance arrangements. A separate bill will create new local powers relating to bus franchising. The new government’s intention to move quickly on English devolution was also demonstrated in a letter sent from Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Angela Rayner to council leaders earlier in the week. Rayner reiterated the government’s commitment to widening and deepening devolution in England, and invited new devolution deal bids by the end of September.

The government also used the speech to recommit to the creation of a Council for the Nations and Regions (which can be set up without legislation), and a reset of the relationship between Westminster and the devolved governments. On Northern Ireland, it proposes to start the process of repealing the controversial Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023; the briefing notes on the speech pledge repeal of the conditional immunity scheme, and promise wide consultation on further changes – suggesting that further legislation may follow in later sessions.

The speech promised action, too, on parliament, with the announcement of a bill to end the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. Removing the remaining 92 hereditary seats which were retained in the 1999 reforms was a key Labour manifesto commitment on the constitution. It is likely to have strong support in the Commons, though some peers may have preferred a gradual phasing-out of hereditaries via the end of by-elections (as repeatedly proposed by Labour peer Lord Grocott in private member’s bills), over a single decisive removal. The briefing notes also promised to extend 2015 legislation which aims to increase the representation of women among the 26 bishops who sit in the Lords.

The speech also reiterated Labour’s plan to set up a Modernisation Committee to look into House of Commons procedures, ethics and working practices. Legislation is not necessary to do so, and the speech did not propose a bill – instead, Leader of the House Lucy Powell confirmed in the new session’s first business questions that a motion will be brought forward on Thursday to create the committee. Key things to look out for include the committee’s membership, and any further detail on its remit.

The speech’s main proposal on standards was for a Hillsborough Law, creating a legal duty of candour for public servants and authorities. This again enacts a manifesto commitment, aimed at ensuring transparency in the case of public-sector wrongdoing (with the initial responses to both Hillsborough and the infected blood scandal cited as examples of the type of defensiveness the bill aims to prevent). And the government has also committed to legislation to guarantee OBR scrutiny of significant changes to taxation or public spending.

What was not included?

There are plenty of good reasons that previously stated policy commitments might not appear in a King’s speech. The speech sets out the government’s intentions only for this session; the first King’s speech of a parliament, more than any other, is an exercise in prioritisation. It is also designed to set out the government’s legislative priorities, rather than an exhaustive list of its policy plans (though, as the inclusion of the Modernisation Committee shows, there a government can allude to non-legislative plans if it wishes). And the speech does not have to be exhaustive. So long as space remains in the legislative agenda, there is nothing to stop a government from bringing forward bills not announced in the speech. All that said, this King’s speech was perhaps as interesting for what was not included, as what was.

The most striking omission was any legislation relating to elections. The speech promised that the government would ‘strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage wide participation in the democratic process’ – but did not promise any bills to enact this. Some changes could be made without primary legislation, as with the promised expansion of valid forms of voter ID. Another key measure to safeguard electoral integrity would be to withdraw the Strategy and Policy Statement for the Electoral Commission. This could again be done without legislation (though a bill would be required to remove the statutory provision for a statement, and it should be noted that Labour has not set out any plans in this area). But other electoral pledges would require legislation – notably, votes at 16. Its omission in this King’s speech suggests that any legislation is intended for a future session, with Powell suggesting in one interview that the government aims only to have legislation in place in time for the next general election. The mention of widening participation might point toward plans for Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) – though its implementation is not entirely straightforward, and a delay would allow the government to learn from experience in Wales following the Senedd’s passage of AVR legislation earlier this year.

There were also omissions relating to the House of Lords, with the announced removal of the hereditary peers representing just part of the package of reforms proposed in the manifesto. These included a stronger participation requirement, stronger measures to remove disgraced peers, reforms to the appointment process, and a retirement age of 80. Again, some of these policy goals could be accomplished without legislation – for example, the arrangements for expelling members are spelled out in Lords Standing Orders. Reforms to the appointment process could, at least at first, be accomplished via a letter from the Prime Minister to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, to strengthen its powers and expand its remit (though legislation would be needed in the medium term to entrench these changes). The omission of a retirement age suggests that the government may reconsider the policy, which has been criticised from various quarters and is now likely to be subject to consultation.

Finally, the speech contained very little relating to standards, except for a pledge ‘to help rebuild trust and foster respect’ (linked to the announcement of the Hillsborough Law and legislation on the armed forces). This is not entirely surprising. Though the Labour manifesto committed to the establishment of a new Integrity and Ethics Commission, and the strengthening of some existing regulators, it did not commit to legislating. Much can be done in this area through non-legislative means; in addition to the Modernisation Committee, Lucy Powell announced that a motion on second jobs for MPs will be brought forward on Thursday. Starmer has confirmed his intention to allow the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests to open investigations without the Prime Minister being able to exercise a veto (while remaining vague on the mechanism for this change – which can, again, be accomplished in the short term at least via a simple letter). However, experts have pressed for legislation to address the uneven statutory underpinnings of the current system, which has only some regulators’ existence and remit set out in primary legislation.

Conclusion

Amid a busy legislative agenda, the new government has included a number of constitutional measures – showing its ambition to make change in this area, and in particular its commitment to further devolution in England. Many other promised constitutional policies that were not included in the King’s speech can be enacted without legislation and – as with the creation of the Modernisation Committee – some such changes are already underway. The government has also promised a fresh approach to various areas, with statements or speeches promising a reset of relations with the civil service, openness to parliamentary scrutiny, and commitment to the rule of law.

Perhaps the most notable major manifesto pledge that is still to be addressed is votes at 16. And there is scope for a government that is serious about constitutional reform to go further in various areas, not least to strengthen the standards system. But there is plenty of scope left for constitutional measures in future sessions; this King’s speech was always only ever likely to signal the start of the new government’s constitutional reform agenda.

About the author

Lisa James is a Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit. 

Featured image: The Government frontbench (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0), by uk_parliament.