King’s Speech 2024: Reactions from Hogan Lovells partners

Ed Bowyer, employment law partner at Hogan Lovells, said: “There are two key pieces of employment-related legislation in the King’s Speech – the Employment Rights Bill and a draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. However, we are still missing much of the detail about how the reforms will work. For example, we know that the Employment Rights Bill will ban “exploitative” zero-hours contracts but it doesn’t seem that there will be a complete ban. Similarly, unfair dismissal will become a day one right – as expected – but it appears that there will be some flexibility allowing employers to use probationary periods to assess new hires. Until the Bill is actually published – expected within 100 days - it’s very difficult to say how big the impact for employers will be. But it’s clear that there are some significant changes ahead.”

Commenting on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, partner Hannah Quarterman, said: “The promise of yet more planning reform will elicit conflicting feelings in many. The regime is certainly far from perfect, and there are many elements which could stand to be improved, but one of the greatest challenges the industry has faced in recent times has been instability and unpredictability. Great emphasis was placed on stability in the King’s Speech, and it would be great to see planning benefiting from such stability as soon as possible.

“It’s interesting that, despite having very publicly rejected the term levelling-up, this is still very much a clear commitment. As well as great emphasis on the need for economic growth generally, the emphasis on devolution, including in planning terms, is explained by the assertion that the fact that England is one of the most centralised economise in the world is linked to it also having some of the highest levels of geographic inequality. Whilst it may no longer be called levelling-up, the new government clearly want to ensure that economic growth, including the potential for growth through planning activity, is distributed appropriately around the country. 

“In terms of the measures proposed, it is great to see a commitment to increasing local planning authority capacity. No planning regime, and no planning reform, can be truly effective until those implementing it are properly resourced. Too many planning departments have experienced resourcing challenges at a time when the demands on them seem to have been growing exponentially, for example in terms of the need to consider biodiversity net gain and fire safety. 

“The prospect of modernised planning committees is a welcome one, although it isn’t clear exactly what this modernisation will look like. The quality of committees varies dramatically around the country, which can cause unpredictability in decision making, as well as unnecessary delay and costs for all involved. Ensuring that quality planning committees are able to give proper consideration to all planning applications is crucial to quickly facilitating the delivering the homes we need, in the right places. 

“The proposal around compulsory purchase compensation rules have the potential to be more controversial than perhaps the government envisages. The narrative around compensation often focusses on the notion that landowners are frequently over compensated, at the expense of the general public. However, reality is often far more complex, and few of those losing land are likely to feel that they have received some kind of windfall. The principle of equivalence has long been enshrined in compensation rules – a landowner should be left no better, and no worse, off than they would have been in the absence of the CPO.”

Commenting on the Arbitration Bill, partner Markus Burgstaller, said: "The soon-to-be revived Arbitration Bill would appear to maintain the position that the law applicable to arbitration agreements that do not arise from investor-state agreements will be the law of the seat. This clarifies the position under English law since the Supreme court’s judgment in Enka v Chubb. Underlining this policy is the consideration that where parties choose to seat their arbitration in England & Wales, it is English law that they want to govern key questions such as arbitrability and scope. The policy aims to increase certainty and promote England & Wales further as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction."

Commenting on the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, partner Michael Roberts, said: “There was a missed opportunity to provide clarity for businesses on The Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill following the recent PACCAR Supreme Court judgment. The judgment held that some litigation funding agreements constituted damages-based agreements (DBAs), requiring compliance with the conditions set out in the DBA Regulations 2013. The uncertainty created by the judgment continues, and the Bill remains an unfortunate casualty of the early election.”

To stay up to date with the latest insights on the key elections taking place in 2024 around the globe, and updates on related regulatory developments, please visit the Hogan Lovells Elections Hub.