Government plans new laws on EU ties, welfare, energy, devolution

A programme built around control and compromise

King Charles III’s upcoming speech will not just set out a legislative list. It will reveal where Keir Starmer’s government thinks it can afford friction, where it needs to show compassion, and where it believes voters will tolerate a new balance between central power and local autonomy. The clearest pattern is a government trying to look reformist without reopening the biggest constitutional fights of the Brexit era.

That means four pressure points sit at the center of the agenda: closer EU alignment in selected areas, welfare reform that mixes protection with cuts, an energy independence bill that reaches into regulation, and devolution measures that hand more fiscal tools to English mayors. Add animal welfare laws to the mix and the programme starts to look less like a single theme than a test of how much backlash ministers can absorb while still claiming they are modernising the state.

Europe: closer ties without the old red lines disappearing

The House of Lords European Affairs Committee has described the UK-EU reset as “unfinished business”, and that phrase captures the political squeeze very well. Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to reset relations and deepen ties, but it also ruled out rejoining the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. That leaves ministers trying to ease trade and regulatory friction without crossing the lines that still divide party loyalists and Brexit sceptics.

Reporting in March and April 2026 pointed to a bill on “dynamic alignment”, which would let future EU updates in agreed areas be adopted through secondary legislation rather than a new Act of Parliament each time. The areas named in those reports include food standards, animal welfare and pesticide use, with possible reach into the EU electricity market and carbon emissions trading. Some reports said the bill could cover 76 EU directives and regulations, initially focused on agriculture and food.

The trade-off is plain. Exporters, farmers and sectors that sell into European markets could gain from lower friction and more predictable rules. But the price is a renewed argument over sovereignty, because any system that tracks EU rules more closely will be attacked as rule-taking by another name. The Lords briefing also says negotiations are still under way on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, emissions trading, participation in the EU electricity market and a youth experience scheme, all of which suggest ministers think practical gains can outweigh ideological discomfort.

Welfare: some protection, but a harsher edge remains

The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, introduced on 18 June 2025, shows the government trying to soften the welfare state in one place while strengthening it in another. The Department for Work and Pensions says more than 200,000 people with severe, lifelong conditions would be protected from future reassessment for Universal Credit entitlement, and that some people affected by PIP changes would receive 13 weeks of transitional financial support. Nearly 4 million households would benefit from an uprating of the Universal Credit standard rate, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies described as the largest permanent real-terms increase to basic out-of-work support since 1980.

Those protections matter. They mean the government is not just cutting and walking away, but trying to distinguish between people with stable, serious conditions and the broader system of reassessment and eligibility checks. At the same time, the numbers behind the reforms explain why the issue is so politically charged. The DWP says PIP awards rose from 13,000 a month before the pandemic to 34,000 a month, while spending on working-age disability and incapacity benefits is up £20 billion since the pandemic and could reach £70 billion a year by the end of this Parliament.

That scale explains the backlash from Scope, RNIB and other campaigners, who warned that the changes could affect 3.2 million families and push about 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, into poverty by 2030. The government’s bet is that the headline protections and the higher Universal Credit floor will mute the anger over tighter disability rules. But for many disabled people and their families, the reform still looks like a system that is asking more of those already living with the least margin.

Energy and animal welfare: more state direction, more political heat

The House of Lords Library says the government intends to publish an energy independence bill in the King’s Speech on 13 May 2026, and the title alone signals the politics behind it. Ministers want to support a transition away from fossil fuels toward nuclear and renewables, while also considering changes that would expand Ofgem’s remit and reform water regulation. That puts energy security, consumer protection and utility oversight into the same legislative package.

This is a classic high-stakes trade-off. A cleaner and more secure energy system can bring long-term benefits to households, businesses and public health, especially if it reduces exposure to fossil fuel price shocks and pollution. But stronger oversight of energy and water will invite resistance from parts of industry, and the political gains will depend on whether voters see the bill as lowering bills and improving reliability, not just adding bureaucracy.

The same Lords briefing says animal welfare measures are also in the pipeline, including reforms to the veterinary services market and proposals to ban trail hunting. Those measures are likely to energise pro-animal groups while provoking predictable hostility from countryside conservatives. They may not move the fiscal dial much, but they matter politically because they show the government is prepared to spend legislative capital on issues with clear moral symbolism.

Devolution and the visitor levy: who pays for local growth

The government’s November 2025 consultation on an overnight visitor levy in England is the clearest example of ministers trying to link local empowerment to local revenue. Under the proposal, mayors of Strategic Authorities would be able to introduce a modest charge on overnight stays, with the proceeds used for transport, regeneration and cultural assets. The levy would be optional, and central government says funding would not be reduced if a mayor chose not to introduce it.

That optional design is politically important. It lets ministers say they are devolving power without forcing every place to adopt the same tax, and it gives mayors room to decide whether their local economies can carry the cost. The consultation also says the power could be extended to leaders in Foundation Strategic Authorities, and that the levy’s merits may become part of future mayoral election campaigns.

Support is already broad. The Local Government Association backs the idea, London Councils wants boroughs to retain at least 50% of revenue raised in their area, and a coalition of mayors from Liverpool City Region, Greater Manchester, London, the North East, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire said in June 2025 that a levy could unlock funding for tourism and cultural infrastructure. Bath & North East Somerset Council, which says Bath attracts around six million visitors a year, welcomed the chance to reinvest more directly in heritage, transport and public spaces.

The government is also looking abroad for cover. It says the move would put UK mayors on a similar footing to cities such as New York, Paris and Milan. Scotland already introduced a visitor levy power in 2024, with local levies expected to begin in 2026, so England is not entering uncharted territory. The political calculation is simple: tourists pay a little more, local areas gain a dedicated revenue stream, and ministers hope the backlash stays manageable because the charge is framed as locally chosen rather than nationally imposed.

The line running through all four fronts

Taken together, these bills show a government trying to borrow strength from targeted reform rather than one sweeping constitutional argument. On Europe, it wants practical alignment without rejoining old structures. On welfare, it wants to protect the most vulnerable while tightening a system under fiscal strain. On energy, it wants to promise independence and cleaner power while giving regulators more reach. On devolution, it wants local leaders to raise money for local priorities without handing the Treasury the blame.

That is the real governing bet. Ministers are assuming they can absorb criticism on sovereignty, welfare, and taxation if each policy can be sold as fair, limited and useful. Whether that holds will depend on one thing above all: if people see the costs as shared and the benefits as real, the programme may stand up. If not, the backlash will land exactly where the government has chosen to test its nerve.