The government has set out its legislative agenda for the new parliamentary session in the king鈥檚 speech. Our panel of experts reveals the key points.
Measures to ease high living costs
Jonquil Lowe, Visiting Academic, The Open University
Surveys suggest that the cost of living is still for UK households, with energy and food prices topping the list of worries. In response, have called on the government to use the energy independence bill announced in the king鈥檚 speech to break the link between electricity and gas prices and volatile global gas prices. And they want it to provide support, especially for low-income households, to switch away from heating homes with fossil fuels.
Among other measures, the bill aims to ensure landlords upgrade their properties to reduce tenants鈥 energy bills. These kinds of measure need to be introduced urgently if they are to save households from expected this winter.
Other cost-of-living reliefs are welcome, although their impact may be small. For example, a move to 鈥渟trengthen ties with Europe鈥 may ease food inflation by reducing red tape and border checks on some imported foods.
The leasehold and commonhold reform bill (carried over from the previous parliamentary session) will help owners of leasehold flats and houses by capping ground rents at 拢250 a year, and then reducing them to a negligible amount after 40 years. Meanwhile, the social housing renewal bill aims to increase the stock of affordable social homes.
A 鈥楤resignation鈥 bill: options for UK-EU closer relationship remain limited
Miriam Sorace, Associate Professor in Comparative Politics, University of Reading
The government clearly recognises that to improve the UK鈥檚 economic and trade security, strengthening ties with the European Union is paramount. But public attitudes are still characterised rather than wholehearted 鈥渂regret鈥.
While sits at around 55%, this obscures deep polarisation and strong conditionality. Support drops sharply in rejoining scenarios that require the UK to relinquish , notably euro adoption and participation in the Schengen agreement on free movement. These would probably be among the concessions demanded by the EU, given public opinion across member states. Support for rejoining the single market (48%) or the customs union (50%) lags behind support for rejoining the EU and remains highly polarised.
The least polarising and most popular option is a broadly defined 鈥渃loser relationship鈥 with the EU, supported by around 63% of the public and even attracting a sizable minority (40%) of Reform UK voters (and 56% of previous Leave voters). Yet this plea reflects a degree of wishful thinking. Given the UK鈥檚 and EU鈥檚 red lines, marginal adjustments to the are the only real options short of the various rejoin alternatives.
The status quo is widely disliked (only 33% prefer the current UK-EU relationship), but there is no other politically viable alternative to tinkering around the edges. 鈥淐loser relations鈥 is not a concrete policy: it鈥檚 the default expression of living under sub-optimal constrained choice. In other words: 鈥渂resignation鈥. The UK is likely to remain locked into a status quo of continual negotiation with the EU for the foreseeable future, unless public opinion shifts towards accepting the significant concessions required to initiate rejoining negotiations.
Tourist taxes 鈥 England plays catch-up
Rhys Ap Gwilym, Senior Lecturer in Economics at 今日黑料鈥檚 Business School
England is set to become the to introduce a tourist tax. The overnight visitor levy bill, announced in the king鈥檚 speech, follows recent moves in Scotland and Wales allowing local authorities to tax overnight stays.
In Scotland, will lead the way, adding a 5% levy to accommodation bills from July 24 this year. In Wales, intends to introduce charges from April 2027: 拢1.30 per person per night in hotels and Airbnbs, and 75 pence in campsites and hostels. Such measures have proved , with strong opposition from parts of the tourism industry.
The UK government has framed this as 鈥渢he first step in a new era of fiscal devolution in England鈥. In practice, it is a modest one. Revenues are likely to be small relative to existing local taxes and mayors may place greater weight on reforms to council tax caps or business rate retention.
That said, suggests well-designed tourist taxes can work. Even modest revenues can help fund destination management, ease pressures on local communities and improve the visitor experience. The detail of the legislation will ultimately determine whether England achieves these gains.
Plans to make it easier to align UK law with EU agreements
Simon Usherwood, Professor of Politics & International Studies, The Open University
For all the talk from Prime Minister Keir Starmer of putting the UK at 鈥渢he heart of Europe鈥, the proposed European Partnership Bill is a relatively modest and technical move. It would give the government powers to make adjustments to domestic legislation to ensure it complies with agreements being made with the EU. This would apply to those currently under negotiation (like youth mobility, food and veterinary standards, or emissions trading) or those that might be considered in future.
This streamlines a process that would have been necessary in any case, and remains reliant on those EU deals actually being struck. So there鈥檚 nothing particularly remarkable about the content. However, the repeated mention of 鈥渨here it benefits the national interest鈥 highlights how the government is trying to package this as something more.
Decisions about when to align are necessarily attached to decisions to sign up to deals with the EU, not to whether to make the domestic adjustments (which international law would consider to be an obligation). Much like Starmer鈥檚 flowery rhetoric in his speech on Monday, the substance doesn鈥檛 really match up.
Nationalising steel for security 鈥 but debts could burden the taxpayer
Phil Tomlinson, Professor of Industrial Strategy and Regional Development, University of Bath
Plans to nationalise British Steel offer some comfort to UK steel workers in the form of preserving jobs and providing stability. More pertinently, the move represents a renewed willingness for the state to intervene in a strategically important industry facing financial difficulties, high energy costs, fierce global competition and the challenges of the green transition.
Steel is a critical element in UK sectors such as car manufacturing and defence, infrastructure projects like railways, and low-carbon technologies including wind turbines. Nationalisation should offer the UK a degree of security over steel supply in an increasingly .
The risk is that British Steel continues to lose out in global markets and makes substantial losses. This will impose a huge financial burden on the UK taxpayer, at a time when public finances are tight. But public ownership could align steel production with the UK鈥檚 broader , such as infrastructure development and net-zero targets.
And state financing could allow for long-term investment in new electric steel furnaces and decarbonisation. In the future, the government could use other levers to ensure a , such as strategies which favour UK-sourced, low-carbon steel for green infrastructure projects.
Plans to clean up our rivers and seas could be watered down
Alex Ford, Professor of Biology, University of Portsmouth
Water bills are rising, public anger over sewage pollution has not abated, and the government has now set out a major overhaul of water regulation in England and Wales in the king鈥檚 speech.
The proposed water reform bill signals a shift in emphasis. Rather than focusing solely on water companies, the legislation aims to address more broadly, including contributions from agriculture and industry. This is a welcome change. The bill also promises a more unified regulatory system to end the fragmented oversight that has characterised the sector for decades.
Yet despite the language of reform, the vision looks less like a radical reset and more like a reboot of privatisation. This focus will worry campaigners, as it suggests continuity with an economic model widely blamed for under-investment, rising bills and environmental harm.
Immigration bill to tighten rules on right to family life
Joelle Grogan, Senior Visiting Research Fellow, University College Dublin
The government says the new immigration and asylum bill will 鈥渢ighten the application鈥 of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Article 8 right to family life is , and both national courts and the European Court of Human Rights generally defer to . So more detail of the bill in future will be welcome.
The background briefing notes state that Article 8 is stopping the removal of those living illegally in the UK, saying that 86% of people from January to September 2022 who raised rights-based applications in detention were released. However, this highlights the 鈥 both on how many removals have been stopped by the ECHR and its connection with the number of illegal arrivals. Research on available data on the ECHR and foreign national offenders indicate that numbers are .
The bill will define family life to ensure that it is limited to the core family unit of spouse, parents and children. But the European Court of Human Rights emphasises the 鈥渄ependence鈥 of one family member on another (for example by providing sole financial support) in migration cases as the trigger for Article 8. So by defining 鈥渇amily unit鈥 without the condition of 鈥渄ependence鈥, the government may the definition rather than narrow it.
A vision for special educational needs
Paty Paliokosta, Associate Professor of Special and Inclusive Education, Kingston University
The king鈥檚 speech sets out an ambitious vision for special educational needs and disabilities through the proposed education for all bill, with a welcome emphasis on inclusion, early intervention and stronger mainstream provision. Encouraging inclusive practice alongside specialist expertise reflects growing evidence that , which focus on amplifying strengths, benefit all learners'progress and wellbeing. These approaches include promoting and advocating for a neuroinclusive environment, building relationships and being aware of the impact of trauma.
However, serious questions remain about deliverability. The National Education Union that these reforms cannot be delivered within current funding and workforce capacity, and that Sencos (school staff who lead on special educational needs), teachers and support staff are already facing unsustainable workload pressures. Notably, no explicit reference is made to the despite evidence that inclusive reform depends on empowered, well鈥憇upported .
Given the financial pressures that schools face, and the plans to sustain and increase academisation, clear equity safeguards and funding will be required to make sure that they are able to properly prioritise fairness, accountability and consistent access to special educational needs support.