�鶹��ý�����

, ; , ; , ; , , and ,

The has been delivered, marking the state opening of parliament (technically, this was the first king’s speech with a Labour government in 74 years). The speech was written by Keir Starmer’s government, not the king, and lays out the government’s agenda for the coming year. The Conversation’s academic experts break down the key policies, from planning reform to votes at 16.

Read the rest of our .

More powers for mayors

Alex Nurse, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Liverpool

The central theme of the speech was around creating a “modern, thriving economy”. Labour clearly feels that the metro mayors and combined authorities are going to play a key role in this. The speech included the introduction of the English devolution bill (ironically referred to as the in some quarters) to give new powers to metro mayors, with a focus on economic growth.

One striking thing is that, rather than attempting wholesale reform of subnational (cities and regions) governance, the government appears to be sticking with current structures and trying to strengthen them, by deepening the powers existing mayors have at their fingertips. It indicates that, after 14 years of Conservative reform, Labour feel they got some things right.

The government will also formalise the right to take control of local bus services through a “better buses” bill. The in recent years has been working, and is evidently something others want to replicate.

In broad terms, there is no earthquake of reform. Yes, the previous rhetoric of levelling up is being . But given almost all of the combined authorities are now led by Labour mayors, it’s no surprise the government wants to give them tools to get on with their job.

Also interesting is the announcement of a “council of the regions”, which gives the mayors a potentially greater voice in the national conversation. For all the rhetoric of northern powerhouses and levelling up, this is something that has, until now, been missing from this debate.

Rebuilding trust in public inquiries

Nathan Critch, Teaching Associate, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham

The speech contained a pledge to “rebuild trust and foster respect”, with legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public servants.

The Hillsborough Law, so named for the 1989 fatal crowd crush, was developed by working with survivors and bereaved families from Grenfell Tower and the COVID pandemic. It would legally oblige public officials to tell the truth when giving evidence to public inquiries. The intention is to prevent cover-ups of the kind in the , but it would have wider scope.

Accusations of misconduct and sleaze have . A legal duty of candour which goes beyond the informal principles seen to govern the actions of public officials (such as ) is a way for Starmer’s government to signal it will operate a more honest and principled administration.

The law would also ensure parity of legal representation for those directly affected during inquiries and inquests – a to giving these investigations legitimacy.

The campaign group Hillsborough Law Now has also called for whistleblower protection and the creation of a to ensure the recommendations of public inquiries are . These proposals, however, were not included in Labour’s manifesto.

---

Reforms – but no age limit – for the House of Lords

Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Law, �鶹��ý�����

This could be the last state opening of parliament with hereditary peers, with the announcement of reform to the House of Lords. While Keir Starmer he would abolish the chamber in its current form altogether, the plans set out in the king’s speech are notably less dramatic.

Consistent with the Labour , the government has set out ambitions for removing the rights of the remaining hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour has argued the chamber has become too big, with too many peers not playing a proper role in our democracy or lawmaking process for quite some time.

But missing from the speech was a plan to force life peers to retire at age 80. This could be linked to concerns that introducing an arbitrary retirement age, and losing significant experience from the chamber, would be too radical. Instead, it is perhaps more logical, with an ageing population and longer life expectancies, to focus on each peer’s capabilities, contributions to the work of the chamber, and ability to fulfil their duties.

There are already legal procedures in place to facilitate retirement when the time is right: for example, the , which allowed members of the Lords to retire or resign – actions that were previously constitutionally impossible for life peers.

Improving democratic participation needs votes at 16

Christine Huebner, Lecturer in Quantitative Social Sciences, University of Sheffield

The king’s speech mentioned efforts to strengthen the integrity of elections and widen . But notably, it did not include concrete commitments to lower the voting age to 16 for UK elections, or to change how voter registration works.

This is a disappointment for young people across the country. Votes at 16 had been one of and a mention in the king’s speech was widely anticipated.

Lowering the voting age and introducing automatic voter registration would address two important barriers – one legal, the other practical – currently affecting young people’s in UK politics. There is that voting earlier , but there are between under-35s and older age groups.

It would also have been good news for the young people and administrations of Scotland and Wales, where 16- and 17-year-olds are already allowed to vote in devolved elections. Currently, the democratic playing field for 16- and 17-year-olds across the UK is .

Over the weekend, about any swift reform in favour of more and younger voters. The lack of mention in the king’s speech shows once again that other pressing concerns, such as keeping the economy afloat or reforming the planning system, take priority over young people’s representation in UK politics.

Replacing the Troubles amnesty law

Louise Mallinder, Professor of Law, Queen’s University Belfast

It is highly welcome that the new government has honoured its manifesto pledge to repeal and replace the . That act replaced all investigations into serious Troubles-related offences with reviews by an independent commission, with the power to offer amnesty to former soldiers and paramilitaries who disclosed their involvement to the commission.

This act was strongly opposed by victims, all of , and the Irish government. They objected to its unilateral imposition by the previous government and its terms, which have been found to violate the UK’s .

The king’s speech indicates the new government will take a series of legislative steps to address some of the most problematic aspects of that act, by repealing provisions that closed victims’ access to inquests and civil claims, and removing the amnesty for serious offences.

However, the will be retained. Given the high degree of scepticism about this institution, the legitimacy of these changes will depend on how seriously the government honours to consult with the “political parties, the Irish government, and all communities in Northern Ireland”.

This article by Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Law in the School of History, Law and Social Sciences and colleagues  is published under a creative commons licence by The Conversation. Read the original article