The King’s Speech: What are the good, the bad and the ugly bills of parliament’s next session?

Laudable and well received as many of these government initiatives will be, it’s difficult to see them making many switch their vote before a potential January 2025 election, writes Sean O’Grady

Two new bills on leasehold reforms and rentals will be of great relief to householders, if not those in flats (AFP/Getty)

His Majesty the King will shortly deliver his first Most Gracious Address as head of state, to parliament, commonly known as the King’s Speech. As ever, the text has been prepared by his ministers. As part of the ceremonial aspects of the constitution, it goes back, in some form or other, for many centuries, and is a small reminder that we remain a constitutional monarchy and not a populist dictatorship in a system of one-party rule.

Politically, its significance lies in how it sets the tone as well as the practical programme for the forthcoming session of parliament. Given that the next general election must be held by January 2025, it’s necessarily going to be lighter than if it were being made by a change of government straight after a general election. It also has to be less controversial, so that Tory party unity is preserved more easily and the bills actually get passed. According to some thorough early briefings, there will be few surprises and the package of measures recalls Churchill’s quip when he sent back a pudding to the kitchens because “it has no theme”. It’s a medley of some authoritarian, some progressive and some consensual bills, with no unifying thread.

What are the most important moves?

Given the crisis in the housing market, the most significant in the long term may well prove to be the two new bills on leasehold reforms and rentals that will be taken through by Michael Gove. No doubt wanting to leave his mark and to do some good before the opportunity disappears (assuming the polls are accurate predictors of the outcome of the election), at least some of the changes will probably pass the test of time.

Both reforms will be of great benefit to householders, removing many of the iniquities of the current feudal system of the leasehold system for new houses – but not for those caught in such traps already, such as uncomfortable maintenance fees. Leaseholds for flats remain. It is a natural successor to the pioneering leasehold reform bill for flat owners, passed by the Major administration in 1995, a similarly late gift to the nation.

The government is also promising to complete the ban on “no-fault” evictions in England – but Labour’s plans are probably more extensive. So the Conservatives may not win a huge electoral dividend for these changes.

Have you got a light?

One of Rishi Sunak’s personal ideas, launched at the party conference, is the progressive ban on smoking, or at least purchasing tobacco. In England, the legal age for buying cigarettes, etc, currently 18, will automatically rise by one year every year. It would mean today’s 14-year-olds, born after January 2009, will never be able to legally smoke. However, nothing is planned for vaping (apparently), and, again the opposition parties also favour this general approach, on health grounds. A minority of libertarians inside and outside Conservative ranks oppose the ban: Liz Truss says she will vote against it.

So are there any election-winning ideas in there?

Surprisingly few. After the furore over former nurse Lucy Letby refusing to attend court for sentencing at the conclusion of her trial for murdering newborn babies, fresh legislation to clarify and strengthen the powers of judges to compel physical attendance will be brought in. That will be popular. So, at least to some, will be the “pro-motorist” agenda – putting obstacles in the way of 20mph speed limits and ultra-low emissions zones (Ulez). A ban on hunting trophies will also be a crowd-pleaser, though whether it can apply to Northern Ireland under post-Brexit rules is unclear. Laudable and well received as these initiatives will be, it’s difficult to see them making many switch their vote.

What about the law of unintended consequences?

The law of unintended consequences can’t be repealed. As a result, we may see the drive to stop people buying cigarettes stall when it affects people in their thirties, and it becomes impossible to implement, as it would mean, say, a 38-year-old nipping into the shop to legally buy a pack of Rothmans for a 37-year-old – defeated by its own absurdities.

The rental reforms might actually make matters broadly worse if they lead to a reduction in property available to rent. Similarly, a populist move to create a new regulator for English football might end up as an own goal. There will be more demanding tests for the owners and directors of clubs and, crucially, powers to stop clubs from joining breakaway leagues; but such is the power of money in football, it might damage the international competitiveness of the Premier League as a forum for top football.

A ban on bans and boycotts of Israeli goods and exposers by public bodies such as local councils will meet with some severe resistance. It has the attraction for ministers of exploiting divisions over the war in Gaza, but the disadvantage of getting too closely identified with the military strategy pursued by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.

Notable omissions?

Evidently, backbench pressure has prevented the government’s cultural warriors from pressing on and repealing the ban on conversion therapy to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity – promised since 2018. For obvious reasons, the next HS2 bill won’t be needed.