The content of the Queen’s speech may not be a secret this year thanks to the Prime Minister’s advance warning, but we should still expect the unexpected, writes John Ludlow


This year’s Queen’s Speech, due on 6 November, is a bit of a novelty. Not because it is Gordon Brown’s first, but rather because we already know what is in it. Traditionally, the Speech has been a well-kept secret, somewhat like the Budget, with the details of the various bills and draft bills strictly under wraps until the day itself. But this year is different.



Shortly after taking over as Prime Minister back in June, Gordon Brown made the extraordinary move of announcing the bills for the 2007/2008 parliamentary session four months in advance. As he saw it in The Governance of Britain – the government’s draft legislative programme, this was ‘part of a wider opening up of government to those to whom it is accountable’.



This is undoubtedly useful. For those of us who work in public affairs and who usually spend the summer months desperately trying to predict the content of the Speech, it is nothing short of a boon. That is, providing none of us simply assumes that this document is the last word on the subject. As they say with embargoed copies of speeches, always check against delivery.



So what can we expect next week? The programme announced on 11 July contains a typically broad range of bills, with the emphasis on health, education and housing. Of most interest to lawyers, however, are measures dealing with criminal justice and terrorism, though there are no real surprises here.



The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill is a case in point. It appears in the list, but of course this Bill has already been published and will even have had its second reading debate before the new session begins. It is included as part of the ‘carry-over’ procedure, which allows certain bills to extend their parliamentary passage over two adjacent sessions.



This is not to downplay the measure. This is a major portmanteau type of bill – very long and wide-ranging – and at the very centre of the new Ministry of Justice’s agenda. Some parts are certainly good, such as the proposal to create a Commissioner for Offender Management and Prisons, and another to remove the anomaly whereby convictions, but not cautions, become spent after time. But much of it is also seriously flawed.



Part 3, for example, removes the ability of the Court of Appeal to refuse to uphold a conviction based on an abuse of the investigation or prosecution processes. This is dangerous. The removal of this basic safeguard could create an environment in which abuse of power and corrupt practices could be effective in obtaining convictions, and could encourage ‘noble cause corruption’.



Eyebrows have also been raised at creating a presumption in favour of trial in absence if a defendant fails to attend for trial in the magistrates’ court, as well as at plans to allow designated caseworkers to undertake summary trials or contested bail applications in relation to serious offences.



At the heart of the Home Office’s agenda is an almost-equally predictable Counter-terrorism Bill. Despite Gordon Brown’s call for an all-party consensus on measures to deal with the terrorist threat, there are bound to be fireworks when it appears, especially around any renewed attempt to extend pre-charge detention beyond 28 days.



The Queen’s Speech will also include the much-delayed Coroners Bill, which will go someway to professionalising the service, as well as bills to streamline the planning process and to increase sanctions against regulatory non-compliance. We are also told to expect a major Constitutional Reform Bill, which is likely to include a new right for Parliament to approve declaration of war and major changes to the role of the Attorney-General. This issue has always been one of Jack Straw’s great passions and, together with prisons, is expected to take up the lion’s share of his time as Secretary of State for Justice, at least in the short run.



But there is a caveat. It is wise not to fall into a trap of thinking that we have a definitive list of all the upcoming government bills. We do not. The draft legislative programme contains only 23 bills, which is significantly below the number we would normally expect in most full sessions, and indeed the document goes on to warn that ‘we also need to retain some flexibility to introduce legislation to meet new priorities as and when they arise’.



Put simply, there will be changes to this programme before 6 November and it is more than likely that there will be more measures. Already, there is speculation in the press about bringing back the bill to remove juries from fraud trials, widely expected after the previous Home Office attempt floundered back in March, but conspicuously absent from Gordon Brown’s list.



Furthermore, Jack Straw’s speech at the Labour Conference in late September more than hinted at changes to the 1967 Criminal Law Act to make it clear that the law on self-defence ‘is on the side of the citizen’, while new consultations announced last week could spell a more wide-ranging Constitutional Reform Bill than first envisaged.



We should certainly expect the unexpected on 6 November, despite Gordon Brown’s useful advance warning. After all, governments always like to keep one or two surprises up their sleeves.



John Ludlow is head of the Law Society’s parliamentary unit