Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
For more information on DeHavilland and
how we can help with political monitoring,
custom research and consultancy, contact:
+44 (0)20 3033 3870
www.dehavilland.co.uk
2
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
3
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
The Government’s legislative programme for the 2016-17 session of Parliament will be unveiled in
the Queen’s Speech on 18 May.
After making legislation for the EU referendum the centrepiece of last year’s agenda, this year’s
announcement takes place in the run-up to the poll on 23 June.
Indeed, the Queen’s Speech itself was almost sidelined by referendum fever, as rumour and counter-
announcement accompanied a public timetabling wobble and the Government fought to maintain its
grip on the agenda.
Earlier this year, the Times confided: “Ministers have been told the launch of the coming year’s
legislation, scheduled for May, will not take place until after the referendum on June 23”. It
suggested this proposal was due to the need to “clear the decks” for the EU vote.
However, the following week the same paper produced fresh reports that the Prime Minister had
relented on the planned delay and would be bringing forward the speech in late May, after the
devolved elections. This change of mind was reportedly motivated by a sense that Mr Cameron was
losing control of the EU Referendum campaign.
Now that the speech is confirmed for May, Ministers have been ordered to “clear the decks” of any
controversial policies in the crucial final weeks, so this Queen’s Speech represents an opportunity for
the second-term premier to relaunch his domestic agenda in what the Guardian has predicted will be
a “packed” speech.
As he looks towards leaving Downing Street at some point in this Parliament, the Prime Minister’s
thoughts have turned to his legacy. He has used a series of speeches in recent months to single out
issues he wishes to focus on his remaining time at Number 10. These have included raising
educational attainment, prison reform and boosting homeownership.
If recent legislative trends are anything to go by, politics watchers may anticipate one or more
relatively rhetorical bills, designed more as a means of meeting manifesto promises or serving
campaign themes than as instruments of technical virtuosity.
Education is likely to be central to this effort, forming a theme within several of the expected Bills.
Whether in the form of controversial restructuring of the schools system, further liberalisation of
higher education, or attempts to furnish rehabilitation for criminals through prison skills
development, we can expect the Government to put learning front and centre to its 2016-17 agenda.
4
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
Indeed, the Financial Times has reported that the 2016 Queen’s Speech will carry a theme of “life
chances and opportunities” designed to improve social mobility as the Prime Minister looks to
cement his legacy during his second term in office.
Thematically, overall, the Government can at least in theory afford to pursue its interests relatively
unmolested as it floats through the first years of fixed-term majority rule. However, Mr Cameron is
facing an increasingly difficult Parliamentary landscape.
The first Conservative Government without a majority in the House of Lords has seen experienced
defeats at the hands of peers on crucial issues such as tax credits, and the difficult Upper Chamber
environment has forced concessions on legislation including trade union reform. The pugnacious
reforms proposed in the Strathclyde Review, designed to clip the wings of the Lords in examining
Secondary Legislation, will likely form part of this Queen’s Speech.
A slender Commons majority of 16 will also likely cause headaches for ministers as unsettled
backbenches make mischief with the Government’s plans. Anger over mandatory academisation
plans provides just one recent example of how backbenchers, emboldened by a divided party, are
increasingly voicing their discontent.
Indeed, the Guardian reported on 16 May that Conservative peer Lord Lansley and a
major think tank had both warned the Government against attempting too much
controversial legislation.
On top of all this, Mr Cameron faces questions over his own position if he loses the EU Referendum,
and at the very least, negotiating a Brexit could prospectively blow domestic reforms seriously off
course. It could even demand the introduction of a raft of new prospective laws. To that end, this
Queen’s Speech could be seen as “wait and see” list.
Indeed, to glean the Government’s inclinations in detail, it is sometimes more fruitful to consider
current developments in Secondary Legislation. As legal experts have observed, recent years have
witnessed increased use of statutory instruments to make substantive and controversial changes
with greater ease than through the cumbersome process accompanying full laws.
If the controversy over tax credits and the plans to change to the BBC’s Licence Fee to cover on-
demand viewing are anything to go by, some of the major moments of political significance could
emerge during proceedings on Secondary Legislation in 2016-17. This could certainly be the case
should the Government decide to take up causes like its promise to hold a Parliamentary vote on
aspects of the ban on fox hunting, a highly emotive and evocative political question.
On the flip side, new laws themselves have seemed in recent years to take on an increasingly
symbolic dimension. In addition to legal wheezes like legislating for a surplus, the contemporary
politicians have shown a fondness for peppering the Queen’s Speech with proposed legislation like
2015’s Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill, an experiment in media-friendly statute
notable both for its brevity and the venom with which it was received by assorted legal experts in the
Upper Chamber.
5
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
Regardless of the length and detail of what is proposed on 18 May, the Government will be eager to
make a clear impression. Against the backdrop of personal priministerial triumph or disaster, setting
a clear agenda has seldom seemed so crucial for the opening of a Parliamentary year.
In this briefing, DeHavilland takes a close-up look at what to expect on 18 May, including key
speculation, rumours and reports.
Updates will be marked like this throughout.
6
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
In a speech in February, David Cameron announced the creation of ‘reform prisons’ to be run by
“some of the most innovative governors” from across the penal system.
The Prime Minister also announced the Government’s intention to bring in a Prisons Bill to expand
the principles across the prison system. Additionally, he noted, there would be a move towards full
co-commissioning powers for prison governors and NHS England in giving more control over
mental health expenditure.
The legislation, he said would underpin these principles and enable successes to be rolled out across
the country from 2017, and develop full co-commissioning powers for governors and NHS England.
Further details of the plans emerged in March when Justice Secretary Michael Gove appeared before
the Justice Committee. He explained that he wanted to create “reform prisons” modelled on
academy schools, which would be judged according to league tables. Among the mooted indicators
for performance Mr Gove listed the amount of time prisoners spent outside their cells, as well as the
amounts of contraband discovered. Back in December, the Times suggested that the reforms would
be focused on maximising prisoners’ contact with their families as part of the overall rehabilitation
strategy.
In a further echo of the Government’s chosen model for the schools system, failing prisons could be
taken over by their successful counterparts.
These details shed some light on the educational themes reportedly dominating among the
Government’s 2016 legislative proposals. Meanwhile, another of the country’s key policy priorities,
housing, will be addressed through efforts to close and sell off city centre prison facilities to be
converted into homes.
Some commentators have expressed a critical attitude towards the Government’s plans. Writing in
the Guardian in early April, columnist Erwin James argued that the changes sought in the Prison
Reform Bill would demand major increases in staffing and funding that could prove difficult to
deliver.
Referencing the Bill as part of a rundown of expected legislation published on 16 May, the
Times described it as aiming to “allow more services to be privatised”.
On a related note, speculation has emerged about the inclusion of a possible “Victims’ Law” in the
Government’s legislative agenda. Given clear statements of intention from ministers regarding
7
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
future prisons legislation, it seems possible that elements of this agenda could simultaneously be
incorporated.
In response to a Question in the House of Commons on education in prisons, Policing, Crime and
Criminal Justice and Victims Minister Mike Penning discussed the introduction of a victims’ law that
would incorporate elements of restorative justice.
This measure was mentioned in the Conservative General Election Manifesto, but there has been
little other mention of such measures since then. In the manifesto, the Party promised to “enshrine
key rights for victims, including the right to make a personal statement and have it read in court
before sentencing – and before the Parole Board decides on a prisoner's release”.
It also stated that it would give all vulnerable victims and witnesses the opportunity to give evidence
outside court and to roll out pre-trial cross examination for child victims nationally.
There is presently a Private Member’s Bill before the House which was brought by Shadow Home
Office Minister Sir Keir Starmer. The Bill seeks to “make further provision” regarding the duties of
the Victims’ Commissioner and about the Victims’ Code, as well as making several other provisions
for victims. Speaking to the Guardian, Sir Keir expressed his hopes that the Government would adopt
his proposed legislation.
In January 2016, with relatively little fanfare, the Department of Energy and Climate Change
published a new piece of draft legislation containing measures designed to increase energy market
competition and reduce consumer costs. Legislation brought forward by the Government seems set
to make significant reference to smart meters as the industry presses forward towards the national
rollout of this new technology.
While the Government is no longer facing the same political pressures over the cost of power due to
a combination of changing rhetorical priorities and falling global wholesale prices, it remains keen to
head off criticism over the state of the energy market by implementing its preferred solutions.
Possessing a firm belief in the need to stimulate switching behaviour in order to increase competition
for domestic energy consumers in particular, technological aids like smart meters will be
increasingly important for pragmatic reasons, boasting the ability to rationalise billing and empower
ordinary users.
Along similar lines, the draft legislation is also designed to give Ofgem powers to support
arrangements for next-day switching. Commentary provided with the proposed Bill included
reference to the findings of the major Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) review into the
state of the energy market.
Following the publication of the draft legislation, the Energy and Climate Change Committee
conducted pre-legislative scrutiny including hearing evidence from witnesses representing DECC
and Ofgem. At time of writing, the Committee’s inquiry had yet to report, but it seems likely that the
Government could republish the proposed Bill with amendments as deemed necessary during the
2016-17 Parliamentary year.
8
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
Ministers have already explicitly confirmed their intention to introduce a Digital Economy Bill
featuring new reforms for the telecommunications industry. The legislation will attempt to address
unfinished business from the Infrastructure Act 2015 by reforming the Electronic Communications
Code.
These changes were originally attempted by the Coalition during the Commons Committee Stage of
this piece of multi-subject legislation. Introducing them, then-Transport Minister John Hayes said
that the existing law in this area was “clearly no longer fit for purpose” as it was not clear enough.
The changes he sought to introduce at that juncture reflected recommendations from the Law
Commission on the assignment of code rights and the upgrading and sharing of apparatus, and
would contain a two-stage test for agreements designed to ensure site owners could be compensated
and public benefits would outweigh harm done.
Not long after, at Report Stage, Mr Hayes abruptly withdrew the provisions. Labour seized on this,
having opposed the format of the changes on the basis that they were unclear and had not received
sufficient scrutiny. Then-Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Minister Chris Bryant accused the
Government of having unsuccessfully tried to secure a “magic deal” with mobile operators on the
ECC, while his colleagues suggested that the Government’s proposals could have lost £1bn for the
taxpayer.
Speaking during a debate on mobile infrastructure in early February, Culture and Digital Economy
Minister Ed Vaizey told the House: “We are bringing in changes to allow mobile operators to erect
taller masts, which will enable the signal to go further and have a significant impact in rural areas.
We are going to change the Electronic Communications Code, which governs access to masts and
has a significant effect on the cost of maintaining infrastructure. We want to bring that forward
through a Digital Economy Bill”.
Two months later, on 13 April, he appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to as
part of its inquiry into world-class connectivity throughout the UK. Mr Vaizey explained that the
Government would be publishing the Digital Economy Bill in June or July 2016.
The minister said that the reformed ECC would be designed to support the erection of mobile phone
masts, and told the Committee in response to questioning that the changes had been delayed as a
result of objections to their original form voiced by Vodafone.
“We consulted extensively on it and we were ready to go last year, but Vodafone told us that the
proposals were not right and could we go round again”, he said.
9
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
Questioned by MPs about the Government’s intentions vis-a-vis its promise for a Universal Service
Obligation (USO) on broadband provision, Mr Vaizey revealed that the Bill would also contain
provisions to support this policy, which he described as “the final chapter” in the initial superfast
broadband rollout.
Supplying more detail, he said that the Government had not yet decided on how the USO should be
funded, but might opt for a mixed model involving some funding from industry. He noted that there
might be a potential cap on the amount of public or industry funding required, as in some cases
individual connections could carry a very high cost. Furthermore, he noted that the speeds
guaranteed under the USO would represent a minimum level.
Recapping previous announcements, the Financial Times noted that the USO would be for
a minimum broadband speed of at least 10 Mbps. Elaborating on the ECC debate, it also
explained that the Bill was expected to try and help mobile operators erect masts in rural
areas by forcing landowners to rent out sites based on the value of the land and forbidding
the extraction of “ransom” payments.
The Bill is also likely to reflect some of the findings arising from a major consultation announced by
Mr Vaizey last year. Discussing his ambitions for developing a new UK Digital Strategy, the minister
outlined issues including digitisation by businesses; digital delivery of Government services;
efficiencies in education and health; and the availability and security of internet connections.
The Financial Times reported that the Bill would include an increase in powers for
telecoms regulator Ofcom, with suggestions that the threshold for appealing the regulator’s
decisions could be raised to the level of Judicial Review. At present, decisions can be taken to
the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
Further, the body is expected to receive new powers to make telecoms providers help
customers switch to rivals and provide automatic compensation for faults in broadband
services.
It was also reported by The Register that the Government’s response to the Better Use of Data
consultation would feed into the Bill, and would create a governance framework for the
sharing of personal information between Government departments and third parties, as well
as setting out security principles for using personal information.
One of the most glaring leftovers from the 2015 Queen’s Speech announcements is the planned
“Buses Bill”, which, after being apparently delayed over the Parliamentary year, now looks set to
appear on the 2016 agenda.
Transport Minister Andrew Jones revealed key details of the legislation in a speech to the UK Bus
Summit on 11 February 2016.
He said that the Bill planned would be an enabling one, containing new requirements for operators
to provide data about routes, fares and times on an open and accessible basis. It would also allow
10
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
local authorities and bus operators to enter into new partnerships, free from requirements around
new infrastructure, with both sides able to set their own standards.
Finally, he added, in keeping with the Government’s wider agenda of moving powers downwards
to a local level, combined local authorities would be able to franchise bus services under devolution
deals.
Responding to a Parliamentary Question from Labour MP Bridget Phillipson in April, Mr Jones
confirmed that the Government was working towards bringing the Bill in the coming Parliamentary
session.
Transport Minister Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon announced that the legislation would be
introduced in the forthcoming parliamentary session, during a Lords debate on 11 May.
He said: “I am therefore pleased to announce that we are currently preparing to introduce
our bus services Bill during the next parliamentary Session
The prime focus of the Bill is delivering powers to local authorities for them to make
decisions over their local bus services in line with local priorities [...]
It will introduce new franchising powers and contain stronger arrangements to allow local
government to work in partnership with bus operators and local stakeholders”.
A document setting out the objectives of Department for Transport Permanent Secretary Philip
Rutnam’s Individual Performance Objectives for 2015-16 lists preparing and bringing in the
“Modern Transport Bill” as part of a wider suite of work aimed at ensuring the system is prepared
for future challenges.
In an appearance before the Lords EU Internal Market sub-Committee on 21 April, Transport
Minister Robert Goodwill said ministers were working with the Civil Aviation Authority to explore
if the legislation could be used to introduce new regulations for remotely piloted aircraft systems
(drones). This followed reports of a drone striking a plane near Heathrow Airport. However, at
Transport Questions on 28 April, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin downplayed the idea that
the incident had actually involved a drone.
He said the Government was keen to discuss measures for banning high-powered laser pens, which
could be used against aircraft pilots during take-off or landing.
Later in the same session, Mr Goodwill stressed that the inclusion of any Transport Bill in the
Queen’s Speech was a matter of timing.
In another area of Department for Transport competence, the outcome of the Competition and
Markets Authority (CMA) review into the scope for increasing competition in the rail passenger
sector was published in March. It recommended numerous reforms that could benefit open access
operators and passengers, including fairer charges and robust protections for taxpayer and investors.
11
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
In a Written Statement on 17 March, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said the Government
was working with the Office of Rail and Road to implement the CMA’s recommendations, including
legislation if necessary.
However, the Transport Secretary has been urged by party colleagues to hold back from making
new laws for the moment. Speaking at an event in Westminster on 27 April, his former PPS
Conservative MP Iain Stewart said it would be “premature” to include any Railways Bill in the
Queen’s Speech until the CMA recommendations had been carefully considered.
Rail Minister Claire Perry restated the Government’s commitment to lowering the threshold for the
delay repay scheme to 15 minutes during Transport Questions on 28 April.
On 15 May, the Department for Transport confirmed that measures concerning driverless
cars, drones and a proposed commercial spaceport in the UK would be introduced as part of
the Modern Transport Bill.
It explained that legislation would be brought in to allow driverless cars to be insured under
ordinary policies, while ministers said the spaceport would constructed by the end of the
Parliament. The Government is reportedly also keen to explore ways to increase growth and
innovation in the drone industry for private and commercial use.
There have also been reports in the Yorkshire Post that tougher jail terms could be introduced
for drivers who have killed people, with the longest sentence currently available being 14
years.
After the landmark Scotland Bill occupied much Parliamentary time and attention during the 2015-
16 Parliamentary year, it is now the turn of Wales to receive further devolutionary attention as the
Government tends to both demands for greater powers and an opportunity to further its economic
agenda and growing electoral prospects.
Having been released in draft form in October 2015, the Government’s next Wales Bill was
scrutinised by the Welsh Affairs Committee but was heavily criticised in a report by members, who
called for a pause in the process.
The MPs argued that the proposed list of powers needed to be reconsidered, with greater
explanation in some areas as to why powers would be handed to the National Assembly for Wales.
12
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
As a result, then-Wales Secretary Stephen Crabb said that he would delay the Bill until the Summer
in order for these matters to be reconsidered. Among the changes he mooted was the scrapping of a
necessity test Welsh ministers would have to consider before passing new laws.
He also stated that he would limit the need for them to consult with the UK Government before
passing certain laws.
Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones has since unveiled his alternative draft Wales Bill, proposing a
reduction in the list of reserved powers and a separate legal system for Wales.
With Jeremy Hunt revealing to the BBC’s Today programme that his role as Health Secretary was
likely to be his “last big job in politics” on 26 April, Mr Hunt and his colleagues could use the
Queen’s Speech to divert attention from the continuing row over the imposition of the junior
doctors’ contract through new measures that will define his legacy.
Before the end of the last Parliament, Mr Hunt signalled his desire to legislate to protect NHS
whistleblowers before the 2015 General Election. This followed the publication of the Freedom to
Speak Up report, led by Sir Robert Francis.
Recommendations from the review led to the establishment of a National Guardian. The Care
Quality Commission appointed Dame Eileen Sills in January 2016, but she later resigned in March
2016.
Rumours have once again surfaced that Mr Hunt hopes to create a concrete set of whistleblower
protections in primary legislation, as the Daily Mail reported in February that legislation was
forthcoming.
The Times further suggested that doctors and nurses who admit to mistakes would be granted
immunity, “under a new regime that seeks to end a blame culture in the NHS”. The paper
speculated that a new investigation branch, “modelled on airline accident inquiries” could be given
legal powers to keep revelations secret.
“To deliver a safer NHS for patients seven days a week, we need to unshackle ourselves from a
quick-fix blame culture and acknowledge that sometimes bad mistakes can be made by good
people.” Mr Hunt told the paper.
Elsewhere, the Times has also hinted that the Government is considering further devolution of
healthcare functions, with proposals for local areas to be granted control over their total budget for
family doctors, hospitals, social care and mental health.
On 3 May, two stories on the upcoming contents of the Queen’s Speech both raised the potential for
an explicitly-designated Care Bill to be included in the legislative programme. As part of pieces
about the proposed Extremism Bill, the Times and Daily Mail both included an identical paragraph in
13
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
their stories, which reported that the Government’s legislative programme “will include reforms to
Britain’s care home and prison systems”.
This was subsequently corroborated by the Guardian, which told readers on 14 May that
the Government was planning to introduce measures to “[include] greater support for care
leavers into adulthood, and adoption, including more emphasis on placing children in
permanent homes rather than with distant family”.
Writing on 16 May, the Times made reference to an “Adoption and Care Bill”, which it said
would “speed up the adoption process and give new powers for government to intervene
when social services are failing”.
Speaking during a meeting of the Education Committee on the Government’s social work
reforms that took place on 4 May, Children and Families Minister Edward Timpson had
informed the Committee that legislation would be required to introduce the Government’s
planned social work body.
With the Queen’s Speech fast approaching, the contents of the Government’s legislative agenda
drew the attentions of Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn in his weekly audience with David Cameron at
Prime Minister’s Questions on 27 April 2016.
Mr Corbyn asked the Prime Minister if the Government would bring forward legislation to require
all schools to become academies as part of the Queen’s Speech. Responding, Mr Cameron declared:
“We’re going to have academies for all, and it’ll be in the Queen’s Speech”.
He defended this high-profile proposal by declaring that he believed even schools rated Good and
Outstanding could find room for improvement. He identified his plans with a preoccupation with
aspiration and opportunity, accusing his Labour opponent of wanting to maintain bad quality
institutions.
The academisation plan was reported in the Guardian back in March, with the paper claiming that
the Government was about to publish draft legislation. This did not appear, but details of the
proposals formed a high-profile part of the Chancellor’s Budget speech.
14
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
Amidst a set of financial policies that were poorly received, some critics of the Government
interpreted the deployment of the academisation announcement in this context as evidence of an
attempt to distract away from the genuine substance of Treasury announcements.
Furthermore, the plan has already, as Mr Corbyn sought to convey to the Prime Minister, been
subject to furious criticism from various corners, including, notably Conservative MPs and local
authority leaders.
In early April, the Observer reported on the threat of a “Tory backbench rebellion” over forced
academisation, and opponents have already begun to associate these proposals with unpopular NHS
reforms in damning anti-Government rhetoric.
Indeed, this threat appeared to have produced the desired effect on 6 May when it
emerged that the Government had decided to relent on the full academisation plan.
In what media sources described as a “climbdown”, Education Secretary Nicky Morgan
confirmed that schools rated “Good” or “Outstanding” by Ofsted would be permitted to
remain under local authority control.
The TES informed readers that the planned announcements would now “be a watered-down
version of ministers’ original vision of an all-academies system”.
However, there will still be measures designed to require academy conversion for schools “in
underperforming or unviable local authorities” where “the local authority can no longer
viably support its remaining schools because a critical mass of schools in that area has
converted”, or “where the local authority consistently fails to meet a minimum performance
threshold across its schools, demonstrating an inability to bring about meaningful school
improvement”.
The TES added that ministers were reportedly “still hopeful that an all-academies system will
be achieved by 2022”.
The plan to make all schools into academies may be seen as the culmination of a series of measures
designed to increase the number of schools administered in this fashion.
After initially ratcheting up the pace of academisation during the Coalition years, since coming into
sole possession of political power, the Conservatives have already added new measures to define
and respond to a category of schools labelled “coasting”, expanding the original criteria of failure as
motivator for academisation towards a more general aspirational proposition.
On 10 March, the Financial Times highlighted the Government’s intention of presenting a new Bill
designed to liberalise higher education.
Referring to the proposals as Thatcherite in outlook, the paper explained that they reflected a desire
to remove barriers to the creation of new private universities, so as to “broaden access and create
more competition”, paving the way for “a new generation of higher education providers”.
15
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
The key model for this proposed higher education revolution will inevitably be the University of
Buckingham, a landmark institution created under Baroness Thatcher in 1983. The Financial Times
chose to view this proposal as a bid to reunify a fractious Conservative Party amid major divisions
over the EU Referendum.
By way of background, it was reported early last Autumn that Universities and Science Minister Jo
Johnson is eager to reform the “anti-competitive” sector in order to provide better access for private
institutions.
Speaking to the Financial Times following his address to the Universities UK annual conference, he
declared: “We need to bust this system right open”. He attacked the requirement for new institutions
to have their degrees validated by existing universities, and argued that the accreditation process
was much too slow.
However, any proposals made could face stiff opposition from both academics and the Public
Accounts Committee, which has already criticised the Government’s direction of public funds
towards alternative higher education providers, and argued that the sector is insufficiently
regulated.
Further details of the proposals emerged in the days immediately preceding the Queen’s
Speech, with the Times reporting on 16 May that the Bill would contain measures to enable
students to switch between universities more easily, and to penalise universities for poor
teaching.
It explained that universities would be banded together according to teaching ability, with
those managing to score highly in teaching assessments able to increase their tuition fees in
line with inflation.
The Government is reportedly seeking to prioritise teaching over research, amid concerns
over low numbers of dedicated teaching hours, and also improve participation, particularly
by male students.
In keeping with earlier reports, the Times highlighted how the Government’s White Paper on
the issue would “make it easier for businesses and organisations to award degrees and even
set up universities”.
The Telegraph reported on 15 May that the Queen’s Speech would include a new Skills Bill.
The legislation would apparently force children aged 16 to choose between academic study
and vocational training after leaving school. The intention was to end the mixed options that
were currently available to sixth-formers.
16
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
On 21 April, the BBC and a number of other media outlets reported that Home Secretary Theresa
May was planning a new law designed to tackle corruption among politicians and officials. The
planned offence of “illicit enrichment” would cover cases in which officials’ assets increase
substantially without a satisfactory explanation.
The issue of money laundering has come under increased scrutiny in recent months following the
Panama Papers revelations, which created a damaging media storm. With the Government keen to
be seen offering a strong reaction, it could view the Queen’s Speech as the ideal moment to set out
reforms to tighten the legal net.
On 21 April, the Government announced a consultation to underpin what it labelled the “biggest
reforms to [the] money laundering regime in over a decade”. Under the banner of an action plan on
anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance, it was described as a bid to implement some of the
priorities arising from the 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security
Review.
The Government has also set out proposals for “Unexplained Wealth Orders”, new court-imposed
measures that would allow authorities to seize property and cash from suspected money launderers.
The genesis of future provisions on tax evasion and the role of companies in facilitating it can be
traced in a pre-Budget announcement made during the dying days of the Coalition by then-Chief
Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander. Speaking in February 2015, he said that the Government
wanted to extend the Bribery Act by creating a new offence to cover firms failing to act to prevent
economic crime.
Although subsequent reports appeared to pour cold water on aspects of the proposals, they were
later put out to consultation, and in April 2016 the Government published draft legislation featuring
proposed new offences. Explaining the Government’s approach during an Opposition Day debate,
ministers told the House that the Bill would “make it a crime where corporations fail to prevent their
representatives from criminally facilitating tax evasion”.
17
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
The Government has declared the unprecedented character of its legislative approach to holding
corporations to account for criminal wrongdoing, noting that provisions would be applied to both
British and overseas operators, and would “ set a new standard for corporate responsibility and
accountability”.
Among the more mysterious proposals mooted for inclusion in this year’s Queen’s Speech is a
reported Bill on the theme of preventing discrimination and improving community relations. The
Times has claimed: “There will be further measures to realise Mr Cameron’s dream of making Britain
the “proudest multiracial democracy on earth” and ending discrimination”.
Given the Prime Minister’s tendency to employ this particular phrase in the context of discussing
controversial questions of integration such as gender relations within ethnic minority communities,
it seems plausible that any such Bill to emerge in the speech this May will also contain a strong
gender equality theme.
One possible related equalities issue that could appear in the Bill is a rumoured proposal to legislate
so that mothers’ names will be recorded on their children’s marriage certificates. Last year, the
Government finally bowed to pressure following a large-scale petition, and promised to begin
including mothers’ names, a symbolic decision designed to further women’s social standing.
In keeping with long-term backbench preoccupations and a high-profile manifesto promise,
Conservative Justice Ministers have consistently pledged to introduce of a British Bill of Rights, and
continued these promises after triumphing in the 2015 General Election, amid significant criticism
from human rights campaigners.
However, the trail has since gone rather cold, and the much-vaunted Bill of Rights has yet to be
proposed in any concrete form, despite the Independent suggesting last October that the Government
was planning to “fast-track” the proposal into law by this Summer.
Much of the discussion around the plan in the early months of the Parliament was focused on the
technicalities of whether the UK would need to opt out of different aspects of the European human
rights framework, and the prospective legality and impact of the changes on the UK’s devolved
nations and regions, including Scotland, which has a distinct legal system, and Northern Ireland,
where local history makes human rights a particularly pertinent concern.
In April 2016 Home Secretary Theresa May made the headlines by calling for Britain to abandon the
European Convention on Human Rights and adopt this proposed new charter in its place.
However, during a Questions session with Justice Ministers on 26 April, both Justice Secretary
Michael Gove and Human Rights Minister Dominic Raab rejected Ms May’s suggestion, and stated
that it was one of a number of proposals under consideration.
18
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
The Telegraph reported on 15 May that a consultation on reforming human rights laws
would be included in the Queen’s Speech to attempt to make the UK Supreme Court the final
court in such matters. It insisted that Britain would remain a member of the ECHR, but
would seek to curb the influence of the Strasbourg court over UK law.
Announced in the 2015 Queen’s Speech, proposals for a new Extremism Bill were published by the
Cabinet Office but were not introduced. Currently under legislative scrutiny, the proposed Bill
includes measures on banning orders, extremism disruption orders, closures orders, broadcasting
rules on extremism, and employment checks.
On Tuesday 3 May, two major papers carried further news about the proposed Extremism Bill. The
Times declared that David Cameron would use the Bill to “put curbing Islamist extremism at the
heart of the Queen’s Speech” in what it called a bid to “fend off claims that he is becoming a lame
duck Prime Minister”.
Also given prominent coverage in the Daily Mail, the newspapers informed readers that the Bill
would include ‘measures to ban organisations, gag individuals and close down premises used to
“promote hatred’”, the paper promised, noting that the Home Secretary would shortly be launching
a review into the operation of Sharia courts in the UK.
It would extend vetting rules in order to prevent “known extremists” from working with children
and the vulnerable or carrying out work in “sensitive areas”. The Government has also reportedly
proposed to extend the powers of telecoms regulator Ofcom so it can suspend broadcasts deemed to
include “unacceptable extremist material”, though sources acknowledged that determining the
thresholds for such new measures could prove problematic.
The Telegraph reported on 14 May that the Bill had been delayed because the Home Office
has struggled to produce a legally watertight definition of ‘extremism’. The current definition
in the counter-extremism strategy is reported to be too loose to stand up to a legal challenge
in court.
The paper also noted how the Government was aiming to ensure extremists could be treated
in the same way as paedophiles, by excluding them from working with children and
vulnerable adults.
Ministers previously announced their intention to introduce a Votes for Life Bill to scrap the so-
called 15-year-rule preventing around a million out of five million total Britons living overseas from
voting in UK Parliamentary elections if they have lived out of the country for a decade and a half or
more.
The proposed legislation was announced in the last Queen’s Speech, but has yet to be published.
Given the relevance and contentiousness of the issue, there had previously been hope among expats
19
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
that the legislation would have been enacted ahead of the EU Referendum vote on 23 June, so as to
allow them to participate.
Several prospective changes to the planning system have been mooted for inclusion in
this year’s Queen’s Speech.
Chancellor George Osborne announced in the 2016 Budget that the Government would
consult on a second wave of compulsory purchase reforms. The proposals included new
requirements to bring compulsory purchase orders into operation and provide clearer terms
in primary legislation.
The Budget also contained plans for new legislation to “speed up and simplify the process for
delivering new settlements”. On 12 May 2016, the FT reported that councils were set to
receive greater powers to seize land and approve large scale housebuilding. Mr Osborne
hopes to deliver up to 100,000 homes in a new wave of garden towns and cities. It was also
reported that Transport for London would be given powers to finance infrastructure projects
to increase the value of land it owns.
Ministers also intend to streamline the use of planning conditions, specifically to ensure that
pre-commencement can only be used with the agreement of a developer. Legislation is
expected to underpin the role of the National Infrastructure Commission in law, including
laying its assessments before Parliament and placing a duty on the Treasury to respond.
During Work and Pensions Committee held on 9 March 2016, Pensions Minister Baroness Altmann
said she was pushing for primary legislation in order to secure further reforms in this area of strong
Government interest.
She expressed concern about whether enough would people “stay in, and want to stay engaged” as
pension contributions rose, and said she hoped pension companies would do more to help
customers, and offer them good value.
The scheme into which people were enrolled had to be safe and secure, she added, noting problems
around master trusts, multi-employer schemes featuring subdivisions according to an employee’s
affiliation.
“Ideally it would be a legislative route” to put in place protections “not just for assets” but to ensure
that the costs of winding up a trust did not fall on the member's assets, Baroness Altmann urged.
Pressed, she confessed that the Government did not currently have any legislation ready to go, but
said she was hoping a Bill would emerge.
20
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
One of the most controversial potential acts the Government could embark on in the coming
Parliamentary year would be a bid to implement the Strathclyde Review, a report on legislative
procedure that followed a series of high-profile humiliations handed down to the Government from
the House of Lords, which in the 2015-16 session has used the lack of a Conservative majority among
peers to block and blunt a series of policy measures including landmark Statutory Instruments.
Lord Strathclyde’s deliberations were commissioned by the Government to the consternation of
critics who mocked the idea that a hereditary peer should be called upon to remedy the acts of Lords
denounced for their unelected status. It produced three principal options for clipping the wings of
the Lords vis-a-vis vetoing secondary legislation.
His possible options were as follows: 1) Remove the Lords altogether from the procedure for
approving SIs, 2) Restrict peers’ powers on SIs via a non-statutory “binding resolution”, or 3) Reform
peers’ powers so they could merely delay SIs by asking the House of Commons to “think again”. In
this scenario, the Commons could override the Lords, as is the case for statutes and international
treaty approvals.
In discussing the second of his proposals, Lord Strathclyde expressed specific doubts about whether
one could achieve the desired result simply by ushering in a new convention, even supposing it
achieved the necessary cross-party support and resolutions in both Houses. He thus argued that
Option 3 was the right one to choose.
Lord Strathclyde explained that his third suggested option “would need primary legislation to
implement it”, though he noted that “the legislation need not be lengthy”.
Upon the publication of the review last December, the Telegraph suggested that the Government
could introduce such a new law as early as Spring 2016, to fit a timetable of implementation by the
end of the calendar year.
Given the controversy that would inevitably accompany such a constitutionally significant change,
however, it seems hardly surprising that a new Bill has not been rushed into existence. Quite aside
from the technical expertise required to draft such delicate changes to a complicated body of law,
convention and precedent, any attempt to change the rules in this way is likely to attract major
opprobrium from experts, Opposition politicians of all stripes and sections of the general population.
Indeed, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has already published a highly critical
report on the proposals, which rejected them amid concerns about the increasing tendency of the
21
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
Government to incorporate far-reaching powers, including so-called “Henry VIII clauses”, in
primary legislation. This controversial trend in legislation allows major changes to take place via the
means of SIs, reducing their perceived legal seriousness, and thus curtailing the process of scrutiny.
Notwithstanding the distractions of the EU Referendum and other forms of rebellion currently
troubling the Government, it seems likely that the Government will revisit this issue in one form or
another this year, given the continued ability of the Lords to inflict painful defeats on the
Government over hot topic issues.
In February, the Government introduced the Policing and Crime Bill. During a debate in the House
of Commons just before its publication, Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims Minister Mike
Penning explained that it would contain measures to compel greater collaboration between
emergency services.
The Government has been keen to encourage collaboration between the blue light services since the
days of the Coalition as a way to achieve efficiencies in areas such as back-office operation costs.
Police and Crime Commissioners have already been enabled to take responsibility for their local fire
and rescue authority.
Though the Government has previously insisted that the separate services will remain operationally
independent, reports in the Guardian have suggested that this could allow senior fire officers with no
experience in policing to take charge of hiring all fire and police personnel.
However, the Opposition has suggested that this is simply driven by a desire to drive costs, while
the Fire Brigades Union has said that this was a “costly experiment with no guarantee of success”.
The Bill has already passed through the majority of its Commons consideration, but will run out of
time to go through the Lords before the end of the current Parliamentary year. It will likely thus be
subject to a Carry-Over Motion in order to allow it to proceed to the Upper Chamber as the 2016-17
session begins.
A perennial feature of the Parliamentary landscape at present due to its wide-ranging nature and
special scrutiny and evidence-hearing procedures, at the close of the 2015-16 session of Parliament,
the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill was being considered by its dedicated Committee
in the House of Lords. It will be carried over into the next session and ministers hope it will receive
Royal Assent by the end of the year.
Two important decisions are expected to be taken on the project in the next 12 months. Ministers are
expected to announce the route for Phase 2 of HS2 in the Autumn and then introduce a hybrid Bill in
2017 to legislate to get the project to Crewe by 2027.
22
DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2016 www.dehavilland.co.uk
Another piece of legislation currently in the throes of consideration is the controversial Investigatory
Powers Bill. Despite legislation in this area having a history of accelerated Parliamentary passage,
time has run out for this to pass during the current session, and the Bill thus looks to be subject to a
Carry-Over Motion to allow it to continue after the State Opening.
In the same boat is the Finance (No. 2) Bill, the annual legislation underpinning the Budget. A
legislative necessity, it too will be brought over to complete its passage in the coming months.