The King’s Speech on 13 May 2026 will set out the UK government’s legislative agenda for the next parliamentary session. For compliance teams, it will land at a particularly busy moment. The Crime and Policing Bill received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026 and is now the Crime and Policing Act 2026, bringing a major expansion of corporate criminal liability through the senior manager attribution model. The current legislative session has also already seen the Employment Rights Act reshape the employment compliance landscape, with further implementation coming through 2026 and beyond.
While the full picture of the legislative agenda which will be included in this King’s Speech will not be fully known until the speech is given on 13 May, we have already had several announcements of what is expected to be included. There will be new legislation on financial services, audit reform, corporate governance, pay transparency and cyber resilience. At present, the long-trailed possibility of a standalone AI Bill does not appear to be central to the immediate legislative programme, despite the growing regulatory and commercial focus on artificial intelligence. Despite this packed legislative programme, a cloud of uncertainty hangs over Number 10 with recent scandals and Labour leadership rumblings. Although Sir Keir Starmer may be presenting an ambitious legislative agenda on 13 May, it could be his last.
Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill
The Audit Reform and Corporate Governance Bill is expected to be one of the most significant corporate governance measures in the new session, if it is ultimately included. The core proposal is the long-awaited replacement of the Financial Reporting Council with the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority. ARGA is expected to have statutory powers and a stronger enforcement footing than the existing regulator.
This is part of a wider attempt to strengthen accountability after years of concern about corporate failures, weak internal controls and the limits of the existing audit framework. The creation of ARGA would give the UK a more interventionist corporate reporting regulator, with stronger powers to investigate and sanction misconduct.
The compliance implications are likely to fall most heavily on large companies, public interest entities and senior leaders responsible for financial governance. Boards may need to revisit internal controls, audit committee oversight, director accountability, risk reporting and the evidence base behind corporate statements. Compliance teams should expect closer scrutiny of whether governance frameworks are properly embedded, rather than merely documented.
The proposed Bill is also likely to raise the bar on the relationship between legal, finance, risk and compliance functions. Where audit reform creates new reporting or assurance obligations, organisations will need clearer ownership of financial controls, non-financial reporting and escalation routes. The practical question for companies will be whether their governance systems can withstand regulatory inspection, shareholder scrutiny and, where necessary, enforcement action.
Financial Services Bill
A new Financial Services Bill is expected to provide the legislative vehicle for Phase 2 of reforms to the Senior Managers and Certification Regime. The FCA’s Phase 1 reforms are already taking effect across 2026, with changes to criminal record checks, the 12-week rule, Statements of Responsibilities, management responsibility maps, FCA Directory updates, enhanced firm thresholds and non-financial misconduct. The broader purpose is to make SMCR more proportionate while retaining individual accountability.
The more significant reform is expected to come through legislation. The government has indicated that it wants fewer parts of SMCR fixed directly in primary legislation, giving the FCA and PRA more flexibility to design the regime through their rulebooks. A central proposal is the removal of the Certification Regime from the Financial Services and Markets Act, which would allow regulators to move away from a broad annual recertification process towards a more targeted regime focused on roles that genuinely create risk.
For financial services firms, this could be something of a double-edged sword. While it may reduce the straightforward administrative burden, it could also place greater responsibility on firms to make defensible internal judgements. If fewer appointments require pre-approval, firms will need robust internal fitness and propriety assessments. If certification becomes more targeted, firms will need to demonstrate why certain roles are in or out of scope. If Statements of Responsibilities and Conduct Rules requirements become less prescriptive in legislation, firms may face more flexible regulatory expectations, which can sometimes be harder to operationalise than fixed statutory rules.
Depending on the final Bill, firms will likely need to keep their SMCR maps, role classifications, regulatory references, conduct breach processes and non-financial misconduct frameworks under review. Senior managers should also be reminded that a more proportionate SMCR is still an accountability regime.
Equality (Race and Disability) Bill
The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill is expected to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers. The government’s March 2026 consultation response confirmed its intention to legislate for large employers to report on these gaps, broadly aligning the new regime with the existing gender pay gap framework.
The likely scope is employers with 250 or more employees across Great Britain. Organisations will be expected to calculate and disclose the difference in average pay between ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority employees, and between disabled and non-disabled employees. This is expected to include standard measures such as mean and median pay gaps, bonus gaps and pay quartile distribution. Employers will also need to report on workforce composition and declaration rates, which will make data collection and employee self-disclosure a central compliance challenge.
This is not the same as equal pay. A pay gap does not automatically prove unlawful discrimination. It may show that certain groups are underrepresented in senior roles, concentrated in lower-paid roles, less likely to receive bonuses, or affected by recruitment, progression or retention barriers. That distinction will be important for employers communicating their results internally and externally.
The compliance risk comes more from the move from transparency to accountability rather than the relatively straightforward data collection exercise. The government has signalled that employers will be expected to take action to address identified disparities, and further obligations could include action planning, enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-compliance.
Employers should begin assessing whether ethnicity and disability data is sufficiently complete, whether employees trust the organisation enough to disclose sensitive information, whether HR systems can support the required calculations, and whether leadership is ready to explain the figures. A poor pay gap result may be manageable if the organisation can show credible analysis and a serious plan. A poor result combined with weak data, defensive messaging or no action plan will be much harder to defend.
Continuing bills: Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
Carried over from the last parliamentary session, the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill will continue the government’s attempt to update the UK’s cyber security framework. The Bill is expected to update the 2018 Network and Information Systems Regulations and extend cyber security obligations across more of the digital economy and critical supply chain.
The compliance significance is that for an increasing number of companies, cyber risk will not be a narrow IT issue. The Bill ensures cyber security becomes more of a governance, resilience and supply chain risk. More organisations are likely to be brought into scope, and those already regulated should expect more demanding expectations around incident reporting, risk management, supplier assurance and cyber training.
The practical implications could include mandatory cyber security measures, greater board oversight, more detailed incident notification duties and increased scrutiny of third-party providers. Organisations that depend on digital infrastructure, cloud services, managed service providers, critical suppliers or operational technology should pay particular attention.
Continuing bills: Public Office (Accountability) Bill
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, often referred to as the Hillsborough Law, will also be carried over into the next session. Its core purpose is to introduce a statutory duty of candour for public officials and public authorities. Ministers and campaigners continue to debate issues including the scope of the duty and its application to the security services.
Although the Bill is primarily directed at public bodies, it will matter beyond the public sector. Many private organisations deliver services for government, work alongside regulators, operate in public procurement markets or manage outsourced functions connected to public services. Where those organisations interact with public authorities, investigations, inquiries or major incidents, the expectations around openness, record keeping and cooperation may become more demanding.
Organisations who may be captured by this, from law firms with public sector clients to the HE/FE sector, should ensure that incident records are accurate, escalation routes are clear, legal privilege is properly managed and staff understand the difference between defensible confidentiality and obstructive silence,
What the political instability could mean for compliance
The King’s Speech will take place only days after the 7 May local elections, which are widely expected to be difficult for Labour. Recent polls suggested Labour could face severe losses, with pressure from the Greens in urban areas, Reform UK in other parts of England and continuing victories for separatists in Scotland and Wales.
While the 7 May elections are not for Westminster, legislative agendas are shaped by political authority. A prime minister entering a new parliamentary session after a heavy electoral defeat may have less room to manage backbench pressure, House of Lords resistance and competing factions within Labour. With recent scandals there is continuing leadership speculation around Sir Keir Starmer which is unlikely to recede in the near term.
For compliance teams, this political uncertainty has two consequences. First, some legislation may move more slowly or change during parliamentary passage. Second, the balance of future reform could shift if Labour’s internal politics changes.
Employment rights are the clearest example. Former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner was a major supporter of the Employment Rights Act and the government’s original ambition for day-one unfair dismissal rights. The government ultimately moved to a six-month qualifying period after repeated rejection in the Lords. If Labour were to move in a more Rayner-aligned direction, employment policy could tilt further towards employee protection, stronger enforcement and more interventionist workplace regulation.
That would matter for employers already preparing for reforms on harassment prevention, whistleblowing, flexible working, zero-hours contracts, holiday record keeping and unfair dismissal. It could also interact with the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, particularly if future reforms place greater emphasis on mandatory action plans, pay transparency enforcement or broader equality audits. Regardless of who sits in Number 10, it is clear that over the next parliamentary session, the compliance burden will continue to grow.
